Human Rights

From what I've heard (admittedly only a limited amount), isn't it more about the ECHR acting more in an advisory capacity rather than ditching it completely? I thought that threat was made only if the EU refused to put power back into the British courts?

There is absolutely no doubt that the Human Rights Act has been abused and that does need to addressed.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

It appears, if you read what the Conservatives have said, that this is what they are asking for HollyDaze.

IMPO they do not seem to be objecting to the Convention or the Act but to the interpretation by the Judges. In fact, we have lost only a tiny percentage of the cases brought against the government. I think it would be a sad day when courts could not hold our government to account.

It seems to be government by the press yet again. In the case Abu Qatada we could not deport him until we could assure the courts that no evidence gained under torture would be used against him. I appreciate that some of the red tops and their readers would shout loudly that he should be deported anyway but I really doubt that the majority of people in this country would approve of evidence gained under torture being used against anyone. The thing to remember is that it may be him today but it could be you or me tomorrow.

The cat was a red herring (sorry ) too. The person concerned may have used his right to a family life as his legal argument to stay here and he may have owned a cat but this does not mean he won his right to a family life argument because he owned a cat. The judges who try these cases are not stupid. Yet again the press put two and two together to make yet another "hate" headline. You would have thought Theresa May would be better informed. Even members of her own party were commenting to this affect.

Of course the government (probably all governments) do not like it when the press do this because they have to take the flak, Although to me it feels as if we are closer than ever to government by the press (often quoted as fact) I don't think we are there yet.

Excuse me GrannyTwice I find your post unnecessarily rude and aggressive. If you read my reply to Durhamjen you will see my explanation and that my original remark was simply a lighthearted comment with no malice intended.

I don't know who you are but it doesn't help to look for insults where none were intended.

There, that's better.

I wouldn't want to get a reputation for unnecessary rudeness just because I didn't stop to think before I posted

Good post, Gracesgran.

(I do know the cat story was a red herring(!) - Teresa May had to admit as much after she used it as an example.)

So you are saying that the third paragraph of my quote is all weasel words that the government can get out of any time they want. They are definitely trying to do that.

No, I don't think I said anything like that durhamjen

Simon Hughes has accused the Conservatives of seeking to abandon the “single greatest advance” in the protection of human rights simply to counter the threat posed by UKIP.

That's the problem Ana; we don't know when papers first publish these things.

I am getting so fed up with the press. I was watching the Sunday Politics Conference Special today and Andrew Neil was so annoying. There had been a good speech by Steve Webb, the Liberal Democrat Pensions Minister earlier and there was no mention at all of this. All he wanted to talk about was a poll the Sunday Politics had paid to be carried out.

At one time you could have depended on programmes like this to take the speech apart , what does that mean, how would it work, etc., but now the press, sadly, including once admirable journalists such as Mr Neil, seem to believe they are the opposition and are very aggressive about very simplistic points. I have watched the Conservative and Labour conferences too and the quality of the journalism has been just as superficial. You can still find good, in depth, balanced articles but you have to hunt them out and they are certainly not on television and rarely in many of the most popular newspapers.

The ECHR was drawn up with the very best of intentions in the aftermath of WW2. the trouble is that the 1998 act was added to the existing charter which causes confusion in lots of peoples minds.
as a signatory of ECHR we are bound by it's principals.
I feel the effect of the 1998 act and the proposals about changing/replacing THAT need to be clarified before we can assess the impact of any new bill of rights.
I would like to understand exactly what is proposed before I wade in crying - this will lead to torture of minorities, loss of liberty, imprisonment without trial etc.

How would all this differ from the existing Bill of Rights that Britain has?

Wasn't that to do with the power of Kings (and Queens), Hollydaze. Somewhere in the back of my mind is a feeling that it was historical (Barons?) rather than how we see rights now but the memory is not as reliable as it once was.

In a world in which the UK is party to rendition and waterboarding - such innocent-sounding activities - human rights and the power of the courts have become even more important. Tony Blair is on record for throwing something of a tantrum when he was unable to deport someone because of the risk of torture, as if torture is no more serious than being sent to bed without his tea.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Liberty's response to Cameron.

https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news/press-releases/liberty-responds-prime-ministers-british-bill-rights-vow

Satisfyingly succinct.

Not sure Gracesgran, I remember hearing someone talking about the Bill and that its existence made the HRA defunct. I've tried to find info but couldn't find all that much about it (lots of amendments to it over the centuries).

The Tories need to be careful what they wish for. They were the original instigators and signatories to the Act (Churchill) and it suited their way of looking at the world. It is full of the right of the individual a Tory mantra. There is little of a left wing agenda in it e.g. the right to good health, education and a place to live. If the European Act is rejected ( and this has nothing to do with the EU). Then they may well find that they have a tussle on their hands when compiling a new one it will also leave the Act open to amendment by (horrors) a future left wing government

This was written at the beginning of last month, before the Tories said they wanted to get rid of the human rights act. It's a lot to read, but it's interesting.
Not as succinct as Liberty's response, Eloethan, but it makes sense of it, I think.

www.theguardian.com/law/2014/sep/01/human-rights-legislation-uk-council-european-convention

According to the Council of Europe, ignoring rulings passed down by ECHR judges would be inconsistent with council membership. Council membership is necessary to be part of the EU.
There was a commission to look into a Bill of Rights in 2011-12 and they could not come to an agreement.

I suspect that extreme right-wing elements within the Conservative party are whipping up human rights issues in a desperate and underhand attempt to save themselves and fast-track the UK out of EU. Their aim is to take total control of the levers of national power. They care little about individual human rights. The consequences of so doing would be catastrophic for the country and its peoples, who would forever after be at the mercy of the ramshackle collection of common laws, precedent and parliamentary diktat that have been cobbled together over the years and passed off as the 'British constitution'. What the country needs, and must have now, is a proper written constitution, consistent with international law, to properly protect the interests of all the people. No maverick band of political Tory pirates should be permitted to interfere with this for the sake of their own selfish interests.

well said papaoscar neatly summed up.