The European Convention on Human Rights

There are always outliers: hardly sufficient evidence for an overhaul,

Yes, much simpler than dismantling the whole thing.

Camille333

Sounds good but it has been used and abused and should be terminated.

Or stop abusing it? Perhaps the terms need to be phrased more clearly, and applied as intended?

Creating divisions

I think examples such as the one you have given are from the very same media which criminalises all migrants and is effectively stoking hostility towards innocent people and divisions in society.

MaizieD

FriedGreenTomatoes2

NotSpaghetti

This "chicken nuggets" thing is not as you believe, Sarnia

The argument was that deporting a convicted criminal would be "unduly harsh" on his son because of the boys special needs and food sensitivities which were argued under human rights law (Article 8 ECHR) as you say. The aversion to "foreign chicken nuggets" however, was one, rather silly but memorable (and oft quoted) example used in the evidence.

It was not the basis of the legal claim.

Furthermore, the initial judge's decision (that the evidence of chicken nuggets and numerous other issues) to stop the deportation was overridden.

This deportation case is ongoing
Just saying!

But we cannot allow everyone from whatever country to remain after a decision to refuse asylum because their child has ‘special needs and dietary requirements’. I’m sure there’ll be many children in the country we were hoping to return this family to with exactly the same condition - and they survive.

Some of these appeals (paid for by us too via legal aid) seem specious - but hey, they keep applying on the merry go round as (a) the claimant might as well, after all it’s no skin off their nose - they’re not paying and (b) these appeal lawyers are coining it. Win-win for client and representative.

You know what, FGT? I think you should read the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights report before mouthing off about mythical decisions.

It's quite short and written in plain English.

How superior and rude too.

Barbadosbelle
^"I'd known this person for a very long time, I knew him in the European Parliament in the UKIP days*

Did someone say uphread, or was it online, that successful deportations have INCREASED thus year, obviously under the Labour government, by a whopping 23 per cent.
Kudos to Labour.

Wyllow3

Our human rights are so precious

We cannot know what government we will have in the future who may try and take them away

*Posters wishing to do away with our protections should bear this in mind. You, your family, a friend, may need it one day*

Yes, exactly. Human rights are fixed and should not be able to be changed for any polititians' expediency.

Lathyrus3

As always the problem comes when one person “rights” impinge upon another’s.

And the perception that precedence is not always given fairly.

Principles are easy really. Practice is where an ideal hits the skin ds,

Especially when you have gangs of lawyers making a fortune out of both sides of a legal battle which usually favours the criminal rather than the victim

Sounds good but it has been used and abused and should be terminated.

WithNobsOnIt

Sarnia

Things have changed considerably since it's conception in 1949.
All articles and protocols are common sense statements but they are open to interpretation For example, Article 8, a right to family life. Not long ago an Albanian criminal had his case argued by a human rights lawyer that he should not be deported because his son did not like the taste of foreign chicken nuggets. I mean, come on!
Time to overhaul this I think.

Dead right. Unscrupulous lawyers and illegal immigrants take advantage of this everyday. It has become a laughing stock. Utter nonsense.

No longer fit for purpose. Needs redrafting or better still let us get out of it all together

To the point where it is open to massive abuse.

Most the Judges are far too cowardly to stand up and say anything.

I think the rights of UK Citizens come first don't you?

👏👏. To both posts.

The part they need to get rid of is the right to appeal over and over again by illegal immigrants and criminals against deportation. Not only do these appeals cost tax payers hundreds of thousands pounds, but delay and usually prevent deportation. So the criminals stay here and often commit further crimes like SA and rape of women and children. So anyone defending these deportations obviously wants them to stay here.

The ECHR was drawn up to to prevent the human rights violations which had occurred during the Second World War from happening again. When the world is heading frighteningly in that direction again, when the UK itself is sleepwalking into electing a fascist government, we need the ECHR enacted in the UK through the HRA even more.

This is an interesting discussion of Shabana Mahmood’s wish (and that of others) for reform of Article 8 and perhaps Article 3. But the key here is reform not leaving the ECHR altogether. That would make the UK outliers aligned only with Russia - and who wants that apart from a party whose leader admires Putin and may well be a Russian asset. And now we have the Tories jumping on the bandwagon in their desperation for votes from people who won’t understand the potentially dangerous implications for 70 million people.

publiclawforeveryone.com/2025/06/18/justice-secretary-shabana-mahmood-on-human-rights-reform-in-the-uk-and-in-europe/

Extract:

In the wake of the leaders’ letter, Alain Berset, the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe under whose auspices the ECHR exists, initially took a robust stance, arguing that ‘[a]s we face today’s complex challenges, our task is _not to weaken the Convention, but to keep it strong and relevant_’. However, he later said that he accepts the ECHR ‘must adapt’ in the light of the concerns raised by the nine leaders.

If and when discussions proceed at the European level, the choice that will need to be made will be a difficult and potentially era-defining one — particularly if the outcome signals that human rights are to respected only when it is convenient to do so, such that the rights of (for example) immigrants fall to be diluted or removed when the scale of immigration makes upholding such rights politically inexpedient. That does not imply that no reform in this area can be countenanced consistently with a commitment to the universality of fundamental human rights or the rule of law. But it does serve to underline that the forthcoming UK legislation and any wider proposals at the European level will deserve the closest scrutiny.

It has been pointed out upthread that the number of people avoiding deportation under Articles 8 or 3 has been tiny.

I want to focus on the words ...

… when the scale of immigration makes upholding such rights politically inexpedient.

The phrase scale of … is one we need to be very careful of. It’s already used frequently in other political debates. In other words there are too many of a certain demographic and so we must change the rules.

What about:

The scale of people claiming disability benefits?
The scale of children with SEND?
The scale of old people needing complex health and care provision?
The scale of old people claiming state pension.

I have said this before but I will say it agan. When a government starts using scale to deny people their human rights to safety, to care and financial care, to education, to life … we are on a very slippery slope.

Loads of links on Facebook etc. Easy to find.

Sarnia

Things have changed considerably since it's conception in 1949.
All articles and protocols are common sense statements but they are open to interpretation For example, Article 8, a right to family life. Not long ago an Albanian criminal had his case argued by a human rights lawyer that he should not be deported because his son did not like the taste of foreign chicken nuggets. I mean, come on!
Time to overhaul this I think.

Dead right. Unscrupulous lawyers and illegal immigrants take advantage of this everyday. It has become a laughing stock. Utter nonsense.

No longer fit for purpose. Needs redrafting or better still let us get out of it all together

To the point where it is open to massive abuse.

Most the Judges are far too cowardly to stand up and say anything.

I think the rights of UK Citizens come first don't you?

We should remain in the ECHR at all costs.

The media silence on Nathan Gill apart from one online publication is deafening. Fiona Bruce was very quick to shut down Zack Polanski when he brought up the subject on BBCQT while Zia Yusuf lied through his teeth.

Even the Guardian is being somewhat coy. Something is going on. Gill hasn’t been sentenced yet. I rather hope he’s singing like a canary over this in an attempt to mitigate what must surely be a substantial jail sentence. I rather hope this is the thing that brings Farage down at long last.

bylinetimes.com/2025/10/04/thick-as-thieves-nathan-gill-and-nigel-farages-putin-problem/

bylinetimes.com/2025/10/11/stunned-farages-admission-he-knew-nathan-gill-but-not-his-pro-russian-sympathies-does-not-stand-up-to-scrutiny/

If not, there’s always HRMC now shaking George Cottrell’s dirty money tree.

I strongly feel that we need a bill of human rights in one form of another. However, I do feel that if you want to be protected by it, you have to have responsibilities to other people's human rights too if you want to be favourably heard. For example, if you want to argue that your son will suffer for you being deported for criminality, then you should have respected his human rights before you committed the crime. We have to start ensuring that people are responsible for the consequences of their actions.
The biggest problem with the current law around this is that wording is too broad so it is open to interpretation. I suspect it was drawn up in an age where we had different expectations of what would be acceptable but as we have become more liberal minded, things have become more wishy washy.

Maremia

Adaptations should be discussed. Some aspects redefined, if making a positive contribution. But def not abandoning this protection.

Agreed. It's good protection and it's always good to reassess for improvement.

Maremia..

Links to all these photographs?
.

Sarnie....

I wholeheartedly agree with you

.

Paid for that house.

We would absolutely have to trust that Farage would be thinking of the interest of the people in the UK, when he creates a new Bill of Rights.
I don't trust him
Is this simply a prejudice, or do I have a reason?
When working for our fishing folk at the EU parliament, he did not attend meetings. Think he went to one about his own money matters, pension or something.
G
What has he done for Clacton except provoke questions about who actually said for that house.
He says he doesn't really know McGill, who is accused of acting on behalf of Russia, even though there are umpteen photos of them together.
Said he has never met a Russian Ambassador, despite photographicbevidence.
No, I would never trust him to act on my behalf.

Those are my examples not Polanski’s. He just asked which minority next?