British Bill of Rights - what do you want in it

[Zamo]

Can you explain whether these cases would be judged differently if they had been heard by a British Human Rights judge/court? And would these cases be enough in your mind to allow our politicians to run riot with basic human rights?

 

We don't have a British Bill of Rights to compare how judgments might differ but if we were not subject to the ECHR then clearly we would be deporting foreign criminals and extremists. What is your opinion on this... has the ECHR got it right on this issue?

 

Which basic human rights will politicians run riot with if we withdrew from the ECHR? I personally think that we have most bases covered with our own laws.

[firemanbob]

 

Whilst the idea of getting rid of politicians appeals to me, I'm afraid we're stuck with them for the time being as they are the best of a whole load of bad solutions.

 

So the fewer the better, and in my opinion we can manage with just the elected politicians than run the UK government, we don't need EU politicians to tell our politicians what they can and cannot do.

 

---------- Post added 06-10-2014 at 14:17 ----------

 

We don't have a British Bill of Rights to compare how judgments might differ but if we were not subject to the ECHR then clearly we would be deporting foreign criminals and extremists. What is your opinion on this... has the ECHR got it right on this issue?

 

Which basic human rights will politicians run riot with if we withdrew from the ECHR? I personally think that we have most bases covered with our own laws.

 

I agree.

[Cyclone]

We don't have a British Bill of Rights to compare how judgments might differ but if we were not subject to the ECHR then clearly we would be deporting foreign criminals and extremists. What is your opinion on this... has the ECHR got it right on this issue?

 

Which basic human rights will politicians run riot with if we withdrew from the ECHR? I personally think that we have most bases covered with our own laws.

 

How about the retention of DNA samples for people who have never been charged with or committed a crime, or those who were charged and acquitted?

 

The ECHR has forced the government to stop doing that, and it was entirely right to do so. The government had no intentions of stopping until they were so forced though.

[L00b]

A vote loser to appease the Daily Mail readers, a big mistake IMV. There's nothing wrong with the European Convention of Human Rights. The issue how far interpretation has been allowed to stray.

Here are a few things wrong with it...

 

In February 2000 nine Afghan nationals hijacked a passenger plane and flew it to Stanstead Airport where they were arrested after an armed siege.

Successive Home Secretaries tried to deport them but the High Court ruled in 2006 that the refusal to allow them to stay breached their human rights.

 

Abu Qatada, the man once nicknamed Osama bin Laden's "righthand man in Europe" was allowed to remain in Britain after a tribunal ruled that to deport him to face trial in his native Jordan would breach his human rights.

 

In 1995, Learco Chindamo, an Italian national, then aged 15, stabbed Philip Lawrence, a headmaster, outside St George's Roman Catholic School in Maida Vale, north London. Chindamo was released on licence after serving 12 years of a life sentence but a hearing ruled that his right to family life in Britain prevents him being deported.

 

In August 2005 Anthony Rice, a convicted sex attacker released on licence during a life sentence for attempted rape, murdered 48-year-old Naomi Bryant at her home in Winchester. An inquiry found that human rights considerations played a significant role in the decision to release him.

 

Prisoners can now apply to be able to donate sperm to their partners on the outside after judges ruled that their right to become fathers was being breached. It follows the case of Kirk Dickson, 34, who was serving a minimum 15-year sentence for kicking a man to death when he brought an action under the Human Rights Act.

 

And it isn't just a few cases. Each year hundreds of foreign offenders avoid deportation by citing Article 8 (right to a family life).

 

I don't agree with these judgement and therefore have issues with the ECHR... and I don't even read the Daily Mail!

These examples of interpretation of the ECHR correspond entirely to the point Magilla made and which you quoted.

 

Were you agreeing with him?

So the fewer the better, and in my opinion we can manage with just the elected politicians than run the UK government, we don't need EU politicians to tell our politicians what they can and cannot do.

EU politicians are directly (MEPs) and indirectly (Commission nominated by elected governments of Member State ) elected. And do not tell UK (or other-) politicians what they can and cannot do, Judges do that (in Strasbourg just the same as in the UK High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court <etc.>) Edited October 6, 2014 by L00b

[tzijlstra]

We don't have a British Bill of Rights to compare how judgments might differ but if we were not subject to the ECHR then clearly we would be deporting foreign criminals and extremists. What is your opinion on this... has the ECHR got it right on this issue?

 

Which basic human rights will politicians run riot with if we withdrew from the ECHR? I personally think that we have most bases covered with our own laws.

 

It has got it right, it was created to allow a court of appointed wise men this sort of decision independently from political pressure. I am not opposing the idea of having a BBOR, but I am opposing the way in which it is being brought forward - under the guise that 'we' are unhappy with what the ECHR has done for 'us'.

 

Even your list of 5 cases that you don't like pales in comparison to the total number of cases emanating from these shores. 1652 in 2013. Of which 1633 were deemed inadmissible or struck out. of the 19 remaining cases it ruled in 13 and of those it found 8 where the human rights act had been breached.

 

So, 0.05% of cases has been found against the defendants. Can you tell me whether the BBOR is going to be that lenient?

 

Are we going to see the government change the law each time 1 of these 1600+ cases goes against them?

 

Even if you are not a Daily Mail reader you will understand that these figures are so insignificant that it is clear that there is an ulterior motive to this whole debate.

 

The motive is: AAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!! UKIPS R COMIN!!!! QUIK THINK OF POPLAR TINGS!!

 

 

Excellent move for the EU-sceptics of course, membership of the ECHR is a prerequisite of membership.

[firemanbob]

How about the retention of DNA samples for people who have never been charged with or committed a crime, or those who were charged and acquitted?

 

The ECHR has forced the government to stop doing that, and it was entirely right to do so. The government had no intentions of stopping until they were so forced though.

 

What would be wrong with the police retaining DNA samples?

[Cyclone]

I haven't formed it on very little data and I do know what ECHR does.

You said you hadn't studied what cases they judge or what the outcomes were.

Have you somehow picked up this information by osmosis?

 

 

If that was the case then everyone would vote for the party offing to lower taxes and they clearly don't.

We weren't talking about voting for a party, there are many different factors to consider in that case. We were talking about voting for lower taxes.

Do you honestly think (no, of course you don't) that people would vote for higher taxes if that were the question.

 

Do you believe that the public, all of it, are always well enough informed about every issue to make a judgement about what decision is best? And that even if they are so informed, they would decide on the basis of best for the country, and not best for themselves?

Or do you somehow believe that "best for the country" never conflicts with best for any group of individuals?

 

 

They still have to inform the electorate what they are thinking about doing, and the electorate will either agree with them and vote them in or disagree with them and vote for someone else.[

Once in power, they don't have to inform anyone and nobody gets to vote again until 5 years later.

 

You do understand that we manage just fine before 1998 and the introduction of the human rights act.

You do realise that the European court of human rights has existed for a lot longer than the HRA?

 

---------- Post added 06-10-2014 at 14:27 ----------

 

What would be wrong with the police retaining DNA samples?

 

It couldn't possibly be more wrong than to retain the DNA samples of those who have never even been charged with a crime.

 

But perhaps if we disagree this is why you aren't interested in basic human rights being upheld, and I am.

[mjw47]

So the fewer the better, and in my opinion we can manage with just the elected politicians than run the UK government, we don't need EU politicians to tell our politicians what they can and cannot do.

 

---------- Post added 06-10-2014 at 14:17 ----------

 

 

 

Personally I'm in favour of reducing the MPs in the Commons from 650 to 300.

 

We are totally over represented as it is, if we had the same percentage of representatives to population as the USA we would only have184, but 300 would be OK with me.

 

Additionally I would abolish the House of Lords -current membership 775 - and form an upper elected Senate of 150.

 

As to the EU I would agree that it is in drastic need of reform and has grown grotesquely away from our original intentions.

 

However leaving it could cause major financial problems as so much of our trade is with EU countries and in order for that to continue we would still be required to conform to EU requirements.

Edited October 6, 2014 by mjw47

[L00b]

What would be wrong with the police retaining DNA samples?

12,700 scholarly articles (a non-exhaustive list, as comprising only those inventoried by Google right now) say that you might want to broaden your mind. Must be wonderful living in your black-and-white world. It's the same world most lay people live in until they are confronted by legal issues and questions. E.g. of the type that arise under, and are tried by reference to, the ECHR.

[firemanbob]

These examples of interpretation of the ECHR correspond entirely to the point Magilla made and which you quoted.

 

Were you agreeing with him?

EU politicians are directly (MEPs) and indirectly (Commission nominated by elected governments of Member State ) elected. And do not tell UK (or other-) politicians what they can and cannot do, Judges do that (in Strasbourg just the same as in the UK High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court <etc.>)

EU politicians create the laws that judges then use to tell parliament what they can and cannot do.