The European Convention on Human Rights

I don't think we should withdraw until the country agrees and drafts replacement law. I would not like to lose my legal protections.

Those that proposing ECHR withdrawal must somehow be satisfied that their human rights will be adequately protected without ECHR ( how? or alternatively be happy to relinquish their rights currently enshrined in law 🤷‍♀️

We should not withdraw from it until and unless we have a better version ready to slot into its place the minute we do.

In the gap between ECHR and whatever the powers that be draft, discuss, vote on and enact, who knows how many of our freedoms would be lost? The first would be our freedom to enact a different set of rights . . .

We should withdraw from the ECHR it’s meddling in British domestic policies and now complaining about transpeople and new laws ( prob don’t like designating a woman as a biological woman.)Like all huge organisations it’s got out of control and wants to extend its reach further and further.

Reading some of the above it's little wonder wars start. Some plain rude and those endless patronising quote upon quote of others posts baffling to put it nicely.

I thought it was fairly silly to bring it up with reference to EHRC, I think in many ways lockdown was an overreach of government that has had ongoing disastrous impacts on society. I think one of those impacts is an ongoing suspicion of those in power. With regard to concern about ID cards presumably if they are a threat to personal liberty then voting for those parties which oppose them would be a sensible option.

That's a silly thing to say. You know as well as I do that it was a national and international emergency that called for drastic measures. Nevertheless, it was a curtailment of our freedoms and technically a breach of human rights. Many people did protested against the hard lockdown especially when it meant they could not be with loved ones who were sick and dying or attend their funeral if they did die. Meantime, people in government threw parties.

So it wasn't that effective in terms of the pandemic was it then.

It can’t be emphasised enough that Article 8 of the ECHR is encoded into Article 8 of the UK’s Human Rights Act 1998 which protects everyone in the UK irrespective of their origins.

The British Institute of Human Rights gives examples of how Article 8 protects us all:

www.bihr.org.uk/get-informed/what-rights-do-i-have/the-right-to-respect-for-private-and-family-life-home-and-correspondence

How might this right be relevant to my life?

Some examples of when your right to private and family life, home and correspondence might be at risk include:

• If your wellbeing (mental or physical health) is at risk.


• If you are not being involved in decisions over your own body and life, including your care or treatment.


• If a public authority is interfering with your right to determine your sexual orientation, your lifestyle, and the way you look and dress.


•If ongoing contact with family members or relationships with others have been stopped or restricted.


• If there is a big intrusion into your private information or data.


• If a public official discloses your confidential information.

Do people really want to lose those protections?

The Assisted Dying Bill comes to mind and the concerns that have been expressed about the dangers inherent in that.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9zw3399jdo

Note the last paragragh:

If it does pass into law, the government has four years in which to get an assisted dying service into place, meaning it could be 2029/30 before the first assisted death takes place.

That is going to coincide with what could be the election of a fascist government.

Another concern is that inherent in the proposals to introduce ID cards and how that could lead to intrusions into our private data. Again, the current government is rolling the pitch.

Once could argue that restrictions placed on us during the pandemic where people could not see loved ones in care homes (while Downing Street partied) was a breach of Article 8 rights.

I'm sure people can think of other examples.

Yes I do think it would be good to revisit and imo a few of the articles 1-7 are self evident. Others will be contentious, but I think that it is essential to recognise the wisdom of those who drew it up all those years ago, before tearing it apart. Historical context is all, and we are in a particular period and time. The ECHR must apply to all times.

Maremia

No harm in revising. Times and societies change.

👍

Teazel2
Who is rude?

No harm in revising. Times and societies change.

Maremia

Don't want to give up all of that protection because of the results of clickbait headlines.

I do not want to give up ECHR

I do think it’s time for the articles to be rewritten, as the world today is significantly different than it was when this agreement was drawn up.

Which of these (below)is he referring to when he says this? Article 8 says "*Right to respect for private and family life* It doesn't mention toilets or gender one way or the other.

ECHR Main Convention Articles
Article 1 - Obligation to respect Human Rights
• Article 2 – Right to life
• Article 3 – Prohibition of torture
• Article 4 – Prohibition of slavery and forced labour
• Article 5 – Right to liberty and security
• Article 6 – Right to a fair trial
• Article 7 – No punishment without law
• Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
• Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
• Article 10 – Freedom of expression
• Article 11 – Freedom of assembly and association
• Article 12 – Right to marry
• Article 13 – Right to an effective remedy
• Article 14 – Prohibition of discrimination
• Article 15 – Derogation in time of emergency
• Article 16 – Restrictions on political activity of aliens
• Article 17 – Prohibition of abuse of rights
• Article 18 – Limitation on use of restrictions on rights

Additional Protocols
Protocol No. 1 (1952)
• Article 1 – Protection of property
• Article 2 – Right to education
• Article 3 – Right to free elections
Protocol No. 4 (1963)
• Article 1 – Prohibition of imprisonment for debt
• Article 2 – Freedom of movement
• Article 3 – Prohibition of expulsion of nationals
• Article 4 – Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens
Protocol No. 6 (1983)
• Abolition of the death penalty (in peacetime)
Protocol No. 7 (1984)
• Article 1 – Procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens
• Article 2 – Right of appeal in criminal matters
• Article 3 – Compensation for wrongful conviction
• Article 4 – Right not to be tried or punished twice (ne bis in idem)
• Article 5 – Equality between spouses
Protocol No. 12 (2000)
• General prohibition of discrimination
Protocol No. 13 (2002)
• Abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances
Protocol No. 16 (2013)
• Advisory opinions by the ECHR to national courts
www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENG

Don't want to give up all of that protection because of the results of clickbait headlines.

Apologies for typos, I hope you get the gist 🤷‍♀️

easybee a man in a dress with or without surgery is not and never will be a women.

They should not be allowed in any women’s spaces or allowed to participate in women’s sport.

They cannot compete in their in their own sex category, so they enter ours and clean up due to their hormonal and physical advantages.

The entire subject makes my blood boil 🤬🤬🤬

Do you see so called trans men (women loving as men) demanding access to mens sports, or spaces?

Banning transgender women from female lavatories risks breaching the ECHR, according to Michael O'Flaherty, the Human Rights Commissioner at the Council of Europe, in a letter sent to MPs. (DT 14.9.25, Latest)
Apparently implementing the ban would lead to widespread exclusion of trans people from many public spaces. This in turn 'may severely infringe on their ability to participate fully and equally in society..'
Or in other words, allowing men pretending to be women to fuel their obsession with using women's lavatories.
Apart from there being no such thing as a 'transgender woman' this is exactly what barrister Robin Moira White (who likes to identify as a woman) predicted would happen; the court would overturn the ruling from the Supreme Court.
Gender identity is protected by Article 8 of the ECHR, according to Flaherty, who refers to 'sex assigned at birth', another untrue statement.
The ECHR most certainly does not protect us all.

Read back over the thread, ccYou will see that the reports of people escaping deportation because a child didn't like the chicken nuggets he would get there (his food allergies were one of the things put forward by his father) or because "they don't like beards in his country" were greatly exaggerated by the media - and neither of these appeals were successful in stopping the deportations.

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.

I agree with Sarnia, there have been many cases of people who have escaped being deported for trivial reasons. This simply shouldn't happen but it appears that you have to be either in or out of all aspects of the ECHR.

Seems to me that a lot of the people wanting to vote for a party that are willing to scrap it had probably never heard about it until Reform and the Conservatives started telling them it would be used against those horrible foreigners that are ruining the country .

Please don't scrap it. It protects us all.

-Since the GE last year 2,580 foreign criminals, a 23% INCREASE on the same previous 12 months period, were successfully removed/deported under the current government. I agree with Starmer's suggestion in principle. It's one thing to look at specific ECHR articles and direct Immigration tribunals to interpret sensibly, food sensitivities etc do not constitute torture. But not to ditch ECHR entirely just because of these infrequent cases that grab media headlines-.

And the number of infrequent cases that attract the newspaper headlines? 'Only 29 judgements in the last 45 years and the court found that 16 of those could go ahead without breaching the ECHR. Really puts human rights in immigration in perspective.

So only ELEVEN case in 45 years have NOT lead to successful deportation.

Maremia Sun 12-Oct-25 18:01:26
"Did someone say upthread, 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."

Yes Maremia, 23% increase in last year- see whole thread on 6/10/25 at 12.47...

But they do make clickbait headlines.