Will the right win and get rid of our rights?

It has been used in questionable ways of late, with human rights lawyers having been proved to invent stories to enable clients to seek the benefit of the Act. I doubt Churchill would approve. I would be glad to see the back of it, replaced with something less open to abuse.

Which piece of the existing act do you think needs replacing, and which would you retain?

I'm not sure that the actions of a few shady members of your profession are a particularly valid reason for jettisoning the ECHR, GSM.

Well if you want something not abused don’t let the Tories invent in GSM they are the masters of abuse if any kind of law

It’s something which now lends itself to being misused. One shady lawyer gets struck off (assuming they were qualified in the first place) and another is waiting to invent stories - a criminal offence. I would repeal the whole thing with contemporaneous replacement with legislation more suited to today’s world.

I wonder which human rights people are willing to give up?
The right not to be tortured? The right to life, not to be a slave- to name some.

Which would you go without?

Or is it only “those other people” who would loose their rights?

It’s the thin end of the wedge, don’t be tricked into giving away our rights because of the bigoted voices in the media and right wing politics. Deal with fraudsters yes, but leave our rights alone!

The last 7 or so years have, politically, been like turkeys voting for Christmas…

*Why do UK tories resent the European Court of human rights?
ECHR: Why UK Tories Resent European Court of Human Rights ...
Why do some British lawmakers oppose the ECHR? Politicians who campaigned for Brexit say “taking back control” from the EU meant having complete judicial sovereignty — giving UK courts the last word on matters of national law.3 Oct 2023*

Seems simple enough to me.

fancythat

*Why do UK tories resent the European Court of human rights?
ECHR: Why UK Tories Resent European Court of Human Rights ...
Why do some British lawmakers oppose the ECHR? Politicians who campaigned for Brexit say “taking back control” from the EU meant having complete judicial sovereignty — giving UK courts the last word on matters of national law.3 Oct 2023*

Seems simple enough to me.

There was nothing in the Brexit campaign about leaving the ECHR, which has nothing at all to do with the EU.

Nothing about detaching the UK from any other international institutions.

Brexiters might think it's a brilliant idea to completely isolate the UK from the rest of the world of the world but nobody with any sense does.

I guess it has the word European in it and we can’t have that, can we?

So many cases approved by the Court of Human Rights were wrong. I know if no one with a good word to say about them. Even if you don’t like I’m a Celebriry, listen to what Nigel had to say, if one word of that was untrue he would be on the front page of every newspaper and on every news channel, he would be sued. As someone who knows a lawyer there every word is true.They have made their piles though.

You don’t make ‘piles’ of money out of Legal Aid 1 assure you.

Some people in the Uk[and that probably includes me] would like Uk control over the laws.

In my case, since I dont know enough about it all, I mat want to keep all the current laws in ECHR for all I know[probably not but I dont know for sure].

It isnt necessarily about what in is the current ECHR law itself, it is about having Uk control.

may not mat

I would support there being no appeal beyond our own Supreme Court.

Does anyone need a reminder of the protections given to us all by the ECHR? I am happy to list them.

Removing the UK from the protection afforded by the ECHR due to the alleged actions of a few crooked lawyers is rather extreme. To put it politely.

As I said, the existing legislation could be replaced by something less open to abuse.

And who will be responsible for deciding what the new legislation will be?

Parliament, as usual.

You mean people like Braverman who Johnson appointed as Attorney General because he wanted someone who would bend the rules. Or ignore them?

I think when you have a government which is prepared to pass legislation to say that black is white, which, should it become law I presume the Supreme Court would be bound to uphold then the ability to have recourse to a higher, international, court is a necessity.

Thankfully, as neither the Rwanda fiasco nor withdrawal from the ECHR is in the tory manifesto, and this government is running out of time, the Lords will be able to delay Bills on these issues until this appalling government's time is up. Whereupon it all falls.

I see the bill got through the first time.What interests me tho is not what this government does as they’ll be out next year but what the LP will do about stopping the boats.Haven’t heard what Starmer has to say on this apart from rubbishing the tories as you would expect. The population wants to know what they will do, but the worry is they haven’t got a clue either.

Oreo

I see the bill got through the first time.What interests me tho is not what this government does as they’ll be out next year but what the LP will do about stopping the boats.Haven’t heard what Starmer has to say on this apart from rubbishing the tories as you would expect. The population wants to know what they will do, but the worry is they haven’t got a clue either.

I can’t believe that there are still people who parrot what they seem to be reading in certain media outlets, when all they have to do is to go to the appropriate web site and it is all there for reading.