British Bill of Rights - what do you want in it

[firemanbob]

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

 

Very likley because they don't adhere to it.

 

Vladimir Putin is presiding over the worst era for Russian human rights since the Soviet Union, according to two new reports by Amnesty and Human Rights Watch.

 

 

 

 

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).

So clearly the British government are capable of producing a British Bill of Rights that is better than the ECHR.

 

I am not sure what you mean by this?

 

The ECHR appears to define the European Union as a single state.

[andyofborg]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Theresa May's intention to ban 'extremists' from the airwaves and internet.

 

At first glance it might sound OK, but what exactly is an 'extremist?'

Why, anyone the the government says is one. So basically it could be anyone saying anything the government takes exception to. And that could be me or you.

 

This sounds very much like the attempts to silence sinn fein in the 1980s and will probably have the same effect.

 

Leaving aside the fact that she can't stop people outside the country from using the internet or people in the country posting on foreign hosted sites. To actually get anywhere close to achieving this you would have to censor the internet to the same level as China does.

 

You could, of course, use satellite internet technology to hook up to an uncensored foreign internet service which would mean that the sale and ownership of the equipment would be have banned as well.

 

An interference with freedom of speech and freedom of (electronic) association at that level should never be acceptable to anyone.

 

I believe that the exact terminology was something like "annoy" or "upset", that low a barrier would never make it through the Commons or the Lords. I doubt it would make it through the Conservative party, David Davis was pretty scathing about it.

 

This was more of an attempt by Theresa May to stake her claim to be the next leader of the Conservatives rather than an attempt to do anything meaningful for the security of the nation

 

---------- Post added 06-10-2014 at 21:57 ----------

 

So clearly the British government are capable of producing a British Bill of Rights that is better than the ECHR.

 

on the basis of other legislation produced by the government then no.

 

 

The ECHR appears to define the European Union as a single state.

 

one of the treaties which john major signed made everyone a citizen of the european union

 

---------- Post added 06-10-2014 at 22:03 ----------

 

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.

 

 

you overlook that the US has functioning and powerful state and local government, something we dont.

 

to more than double the size of constituancies would further distance us from our representatives.

 

you would also have to fully separate the executive and legislature

 

---------- Post added 06-10-2014 at 22:16 ----------

 

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

 

actually, it wouldn't be a british bill of rights though, it would only be an english and welsh one, an insane situation.

 

a commitment to the echr was included in the scotland act which established the scottish parliament, anything that challenged that commitment would open the way for nationalists to try and reopen the independence debate.

 

far more importantly, a very strong commitment to the echr was also included in the good friday agreement and anything the uk government does which looks in any way like it undermines that carries great risk.

 

of course, a british bill of rights which acknowledges the echr and its judgements would probably be ok, but we already have one of those.

[firemanbob]

actually, it wouldn't be a british bill of rights though, it would only be an english and welsh one, an insane situation.

 

 

Scotland didn't vote for independence so it would be a British Bill of Rights.

[andyofborg]

Scotland didn't vote for independence so it would be a British Bill of Rights.

 

you missed the point

 

a commitment to the echr is in the scotland act so a bill of rights which essentially forced the withdrawl of the uk from the echr would leave scotland in an odd state. it could open the door for the nationalists to reopen the debate and force another vote.

[mjw47]

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.

 

They have no need whatsoever to be able to read minds.

 

What they need to be able to do is produce evidence of the commission of a crime and the reason why they believe that someone is involved in that crime.

 

We are talking about a police force which was provided with plenty of reports and complaints regarding the abuse of young vulnerable girls below the age of consent in Rotherham and failed to act to protect children.

 

Two of the people who provided this evidence were a Times reporter, who was told to back off because he was endangering an investigation, which was two years old and hadn't resulted in any arrests.

 

And a young female Home Office researcher who was threatened by two police officers that " It would be a shame if one of these gangs found out where you lived."

 

Oh yes, I'm completely content to allow people of that caliber to have unrestricted power over my life.

 

Still waiting for your view on the British Government being that eager to kiss American arse that they allowed British citizens to be extradited without being able to require the same courtesy in reverse.

 

Always had the weird belief that your Government were supposed to have the interests, and protection of their citizens as a priority.

 

Apparently not when it comes to our 'Special Relationship', which appears to consist of asking the Yanks just how far Britain should bend over.

[firemanbob]

you missed the point

 

a commitment to the echr is in the scotland act so a bill of rights which essentially forced the withdrawl of the uk from the echr would leave scotland in an odd state. it could open the door for the nationalists to reopen the debate and force another vote.

 

Well in that case the British government should scrap the ides, we wouldn't want to upset the Scottish would we.

 

---------- Post added 07-10-2014 at 06:56 ----------

 

They have no need whatsoever to be able to read minds.

 

What they need to be able to do is produce evidence of the commission of a crime and the reason why they believe that someone is involved in that crime.

 

 

That's what they do and you appear to be against it.

 

---------- Post added 07-10-2014 at 06:57 ----------

 

 

We are talking about a police force which was provided with plenty of reports and complaints regarding the abuse of young vulnerable girls below the age of consent in Rotherham and failed to act to protect children.

 

 

Probably because they were worried about people like you complaining if they arrested someone that turned out to be innocent.

 

---------- Post added 07-10-2014 at 07:01 ----------

 

 

Still waiting for your view on the British Government being that eager to kiss American arse that they allowed British citizens to be extradited without being able to require the same courtesy in reverse.

 

Always had the weird belief that your Government were supposed to have the interests, and protection of their citizens as a priority.

 

Apparently not when it comes to our 'Special Relationship', which appears to consist of asking the Yanks just how far Britain should bend over.

 

Remind me again what these people had done wrong.

[tzijlstra]

The ECHR appears to define the European Union as a single state.

 

Only when it comes to freedom of trade and movement of goods and persons, you might not have noticed, but it has been like that for quite some time now, try to keep up.

[L00b]

That is right... people are not interested in whether it is legally sound but whether the outcome is right and just. It offends most people's sense of justice that we are prevented from deporting foreign criminals and extremists because of Human Rights.

You do realise that justice systems are universally considered preferable to mob rule, right?

You can try and dismiss it as statistically insignificant but, whether you like it or not, these are the sort of issues that matter to people and that makes them significant.

You should try and back up your opinion with a bit of evidence.

If the UK is to stay in the EU then the concerns of the red-top reading plebs will have to be addressed.

You think so? Methinks the concerns of financiers (the very large scale ones funding the UK's debt) will be addressed first, somehow. Not saying it's right or fair at all, but that's just common sense

What is ironic is that I'm somewhat on the fence when it comes to being in or out of the EU (I would prefer reform) but people like you make me want to vote to leave just because it will get on your nerves!

Shows the extent of your political sophistication

 

It won't get on my nerves at all, btw: it will just (i) constitute an exercise of your right to vote (the same as everybody else's), against which I do not have the slightest problem howsoever and (ii) vindicate my opinion of you

[firemanbob]

Only when it comes to freedom of trade and movement of goods and persons, you might not have noticed, but it has been like that for quite some time now, try to keep up.

 

Clearly it is something that I already new about and disagreed with, do try to keep up.

[mjw47]

Well in that case the British government should scrap the ides, we wouldn't want to upset the Scottish would we.

 

---------- Post added 07-10-2014 at 06:56 ----------

 

 

That's what they do and you appear to be against it.

 

---------- Post added 07-10-2014 at 06:57 ----------

 

 

Probably because they were worried about people like you complaining if they arrested someone that turned out to be innocent.

 

---------- Post added 07-10-2014 at 07:01 ----------

 

 

Remind me again what these people had done wrong.

 

That is what they quite clearly totally fail to do.

 

What do you mean by 'people like me?'

 

If you mean people that think the police aren't capable of doing their jobs when provided with ongoing evidence from several sources, including two respectable outsiders, but are very capable of messing innocents about, then fair enough.

 

These people were businessmen involved in finances.

 

They were in possession of information which allowed them to make some money.

 

A minor transgression under British Law, jail time under US law because of their reaction to Enron etc.

 

SO?