Gove and the Human Rights Act

Or maybe I won't!

Crossed posts, janer. I'll read your link now.

Thanks for the links, dj. I've read them both. The first is a little more informative than the second. Most of what the second says is also said in the first, though the second also mentions another, quite separate court.

While I don't claim to understand all the issues in detail, it does rather look to me as if we don't need to worry that our human rights will be eroded away by this government. The issues are complex, even to lawyers, and I think that will necessitate slow change, if there is any, in very small steps. Time will tell.

I enjoyed that...thanks for the link janerowena

If you can see this, it might help to relieve some tension.

games.usvsth3m.com/slap-michael-gove/?fb_ref=Default

Quite therapeutic, I found.

fullfact.org/law/debate_human_rights_law-39124

Both are important.

fullfact.org/law/conservative-party-bill-of-rights-39308/

Thankfully this is devolved to the Scottish government .

X posts

The ECHR ( neither the court or the convention)isn't being abolished - the issue is whether we will have access to the court if the Bill of British Rights isn't upto the standard of the convention

Shall do. Thanks.

thatbags We can leave the ECHR not abolish it, but I don't know about the UN thing - that is an interesting question and one I fervently hope we don't have to answer.

Before the 1998 act it was just the ECHR which was set up after the war. No Tory policy is not to go back to that they want to introduce something of their own. Look at my post 15.02pm.

TBH, I do think it was ridiculous that Britain couldn't get rid of Abu Hamza more expeditiously.

Will we still be signatories to the UN Convention on Human Rights if the ECHR is abolished?

What was in place before the 1998 Act, if anything? Is it Tory policy to go back to that?

Exactly - and why should a government be able to do as it wants without being subject to the rule of law? Very often what she wanted to do was actually illegal and had not followed due process - we shouldn't rewrite laws to help governments be more slapdash and careless in their approach. When I read some of the immigration appeal tribunal decisions it's horrifying what governments were trying to get away with

One of the reasons that they will almost certainly give is the difficulty May had over various Islamic terrorists and her inability to do as she would like with regard to deportation etc. A lawyer could explain the case much more succinctly but one thing I would question is that is it necessary to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Agreed; and it will be in black and white for all to see. In fact, she might get an email from all of us [me, the S.O. and DD].

But it will be interesting to see the reply which will be a template provided to all of them

If she's Conservative, then she'll support the Government -- or the whips will have her hide--

Well, I'll email my MP and ask her if this is true and, if so can she explain exactly why this Act needs to be repealed and that, as my representative in Parliament I would like it to be made known that I don't agree with it and could she tell me which way she is likely to vote. Then, hopefully [if I can work out how to do it] I'll put her answer up on here.

Well that's a pretty good list to start with!

Be interesting to see who is against the repeal and who for it.

Certainly the Tory press is for the repeal.

We know the Law Society is against, as is Amnesty, Liberty, - not sure who else.

That's why it will get through so easily on a vote but there is going to be a real bunfight with the legal establishment and the civil/human rights organisations

g2

Cameron is intent on rushing through all contentious issues before the opposition gets it act together. We are dependent on the SNP to do the job for us - there's irony for you!!! Although they are keeping their HR Act. so maybe they won't have anything to say.

[groan]