British Bill of Rights - what do you want in it

[leviathan13]

Or he became privy to some additional information and changed his opinion.

 

Is that your belief of how politics work? Are you saying that politicians don't lie to get votes, and never look out for themselves and their cronies before the good of the country?

[firemanbob]

Is that your belief of how politics work? Are you saying that politicians don't lie to get votes, and never look out for themselves and their cronies before the good of the country?

 

Absolutely not.

 

---------- Post added 06-10-2014 at 18:14 ----------

 

T

Would you believe, the UK, France and Germany are working precisely on that

 

Yes...

[mjw47]

 

In what way?

 

You clearly have little idea as to how the concept of freedom works.

 

The majority of citizens of this country, and most other countries, are law abiding decent people who wish to live their lives without causing problems for others.

 

Therefore the majority of people should be allowed to go about their business undisturbed by any intrusion from the authorities.

 

Should there be an occasion when someone happens to be seen in the vicinity of a crime it is right and proper that the police have a right to ask questions.

 

But unless there is a good reason the authorities have no business asking questions, or demanding proof of identity, or detaining anyone who wishes to be left alone.

 

That is the way it works in most free democratic countries, but the authorities are always trying to erode this situation.

 

A popular way of doing this is to play the 'national security' 'anti terrorism' card.

 

However, once they have managed to bring in some legislation using that excuse they then use it for other purposes to suit themselves.

 

A classic of this type was the 'Mutual Extradition no Habeas Corpus required' pact with the USA.

 

The Americans then used it to extradite three English business men to America to face commercial financial charges which would not have attracted a custodial sentence under British law, but did under American law.

 

Meanwhile, over in America, when they attempted to enact the reciprocal agreement it was thrown out by Congress because " No citizen of The United States of America will be extradited to a foreign country without due process of law."

 

So much for the 'Special Relationship.'

 

The US Congress was correct, and they obviously care more for their citizens rights than our politicians do for ours.

 

That's what happens when servile people think that the 'powers that be' know best.

[firemanbob]

You clearly have little idea as to how the concept of freedom works.

 

The majority of citizens of this country, and most other countries, are law abiding decent people who wish to live their lives without causing problems for others.

 

 

 

Therefore the majority of people should be allowed to go about their business undisturbed by any intrusion from the authorities.

 

 

So would surely be happy that the authorities are doing what is necessary to keep them safe whilst they go about their business. And will be happy to help the police if and when the time arises and should have no concerns at supply a DNA sample.

 

 

 

Should there be an occasion when someone happens to be seen in the vicinity of a crime it is right and proper that the police have a right to ask questions.

Agreed

 

But unless there is a good reason the authorities have no business asking questions, or demanding proof of identity, or detaining anyone who wishes to be left alone.

Agreed

 

That is the way it works in most free democratic countries, but the authorities are always trying to erode this situation.

I disagree

 

 

A popular way of doing this is to play the 'national security' 'anti terrorism' card.

So you think the threat of terrorism is a government conspiracy?

 

However, once they have managed to bring in some legislation using that excuse they then use it for other purposes to suit themselves.

Do they?

 

A classic of this type was the 'Mutual Extradition no Habeas Corpus required' pact with the USA.

 

The Americans then used it to extradite three English business men to America to face commercial financial charges which would not have attracted a custodial sentence under British law, but did under American law.

 

Meanwhile, over in America, when they attempted to enact the reciprocal agreement it was thrown out by Congress because " No citizen of The United States of America will be extradited to a foreign country without due process of law."

 

So much for the 'Special Relationship.'

 

The US Congress was correct, and they obviously care more for their citizens rights than our politicians do for ours.

 

That's what happens when servile people think that the 'powers that be' know best.

 

So you want people to be free to commit crime and financial fraud without the worry of being stopped, searched, arrested or deported.

[mjw47]

So would surely be happy that the authorities are doing what is necessary to keep them safe whilst they go about their business. And will be happy to help the police if and when the time arises and should have no concerns at supply a DNA sample.

 

 

 

Agreed

 

Agreed

 

I disagree

 

 

So you think the threat of terrorism is a government conspiracy?

 

Do they?

 

 

 

So you want people to be free to commit crime and financial fraud without the worry of being stopped, searched, arrested or deported.

 

Where did I say that exactly?

 

I want innocent people who have not been involved in any crime to go about their business without interference from some jobsworth who is bored or angry, and wants to mess someone about for the hell of it.

 

I said 'unless there is good reason'

 

You disagree that the government try to take as much control as they can over the population? Haven't been paying too much attention is all I can put that down to.

 

Any view on the British giving over power over British citizens lives - without evidence which would convince a British court - to the Americans whilst being refused a reciprocal arrangement?

[firemanbob]

Where did I say that exactly?

 

I want innocent people who have not been involved in any crime to go about their business without interference from some jobsworth who is bored or angry, and wants to mess someone about for the hell of it.

 

I said 'unless there is good reason'

 

You disagree that the government try to take as much control as they can over the population? Haven't been paying too much attention is all I can put that down to.

 

Any view on the British giving over power over British citizens lives - without evidence which would convince a British court - to the Americans whilst being refused a reciprocal arrangement?

Then you need to find a why to give the police the ability to read someones guilt just by looking at them. Until then we are stuck with the possibility that the police might interfere with our lives for the sake of solving crimes, and what they deem to be a good reason for suspecting you might not be a good reason in your opinion.

[Magilla]

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).

 

All minor issues that're down to interpretation.

 

How do they stack up against the cases that you would agree the ECHR has been used correctly? I tiny tiny fraction I'll wager.

 

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

 

Maybe you should start? You seem to be repeating their line without really thinking about it.

[tzijlstra]

The ignorance shown in this thread regarding the ECHR (Which is the CONVENTION) Is endemic of the complete ignorance that is rife in the UK population when it comes to all matters Europe. Not catching up the whole thread, but a few things really, really stand out:

 

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

 

The European Convention for Human Rights is completely and utterly independent from the EU, it wasn't even created by the EU, it was created post WWII (1950) by the Council of Europe after Churchill and other leaders decided it was paramount to have an independent declaration of human rights that all countries (Including the Soviet states) would adhere to. An INDEPENDENT ECHR (Which is the COURT) was founded to ensure complete impartiality from national politics. This was precisely the point and is precisely what the Tories want to rip up. This would, incidentally free up Russia to do exactly the same. Problem is that against the 8 cases that were ruled on for the UK there were 119 Russian cases in 2013 where indeed was ruled in favour of the defendants.

 

I prefer the idea of just voting for British MPs and letting them get on with running the UK, I'm happy for German/French ect. MPs to run their respective countries how they see fit and I'm happy for UK and German/French Mp's to talk to each other and come to agreements over issues that concern everyone, But I don't want British Mp's being overruled by German/French Mp's.

 

Again, this is completely ignorant as a statement and completely off topic. The ECHR is NOTHING to do with politics, it is a court. The basis of our (unwritten) constitution is that court and government are separated. This is for good reason, there are countless examples from all over the world where the breaking of the triumvirate (the Church being the third) leads to enormous problems.

 

The problem is we've never been asked whether we want to join a United States of Europe and therefore do not see EU laws as democratic decisions that we should just accept.

 

Again, it is nothing to do with what you voted for, nobody voted for the ECHR, it was agreed upon, in good faith, by ALL members of the Council of Europe, an organisation entirely independent from the EU and indeed any politics.

 

It is to be hoped that the usual suspects never feel wronged by a judge.

[firemanbob]

The ignorance shown in this thread regarding the ECHR (Which is the CONVENTION) Is endemic of the complete ignorance that is rife in the UK population when it comes to all matters Europe. Not catching up the whole thread, but a few things really, really stand out:

 

 

 

The European Convention for Human Rights is completely and utterly independent from the EU, it wasn't even created by the EU, it was created post WWII (1950) by the Council of Europe after Churchill and other leaders decided it was paramount to have an independent declaration of human rights that all countries (Including the Soviet states) would adhere to. An INDEPENDENT ECHR (Which is the COURT) was founded to ensure complete impartiality from national politics. This was precisely the point and is precisely what the Tories want to rip up. This would, incidentally free up Russia to do exactly the same. Problem is that against the 8 cases that were ruled on for the UK there were 119 Russian cases in 2013 where indeed was ruled in favour of the defendants.

Are you sure Russia even adhere to it, and they don't need to us to pull out of it in order that they can pull out of it.

 

 

Again, this is completely ignorant as a statement and completely off topic. The ECHR is NOTHING to do with politics, it is a court. The basis of our (unwritten) constitution is that court and government are separated. This is for good reason, there are countless examples from all over the world where the breaking of the triumvirate (the Church being the third) leads to enormous problems.

Thank you for correcting my error, it doesn't however change my opinion that it causes unforeseen problems and needs changing.

 

Again, it is nothing to do with what you voted for, nobody voted for the ECHR, it was agreed upon, in good faith, by ALL members of the Council of Europe, an organisation entirely independent from the EU and indeed any politics.

 

It is to be hoped that the usual suspects never feel wronged by a judge.

 

So no problem then for the UK government to write a British Bill of Rights to replace it for UK citizens.

 

 

I just had a quick read about it and found that it is clearly out of date, and need replacing.

 

Article 12 provides a right for women and men of marriageable age to marry and establish a family.

 

Despite a number of invitations, the Court has so far refused to apply the protections of this article to same-sex marriage.

 

This one could do with changing as well.

 

Article 16 - aliens

 

Article 16 allows states to restrict the political activity of foreigners.

Good so far.

 

The Court has ruled that European Union member states cannot consider the nationals of other member states to be aliens.

 

Then it goes down hill.

Edited October 6, 2014 by firemanbob

[tzijlstra]

Are you sure Russia even adhere to it, and they don't need to us to pull out of it in order that they can pull out of it.

 

Yes, even Russia don't have an issue with this.

 

Article 12 provides a right for women and men of marriageable age to marry and establish a family.

 

Despite a number of invitations, the Court has so far refused to apply the protections of this article to same-sex marriage.

 

Why should it? This is already arranged at national level. Although I agree it could do with changing it is pretty obvious that of the 47 member states the vast majority does not accept same-sex marriages (unfortunately).

 

This one could do with changing as well.

 

Article 16 - aliens

 

Article 16 allows states to restrict the political activity of foreigners.

Good so far.

 

The Court has ruled that European Union member states cannot consider the nationals of other member states to be aliens.

 

Then it goes down hill.

 

I am not sure what you mean by this?