British Bill of Rights - what do you want in it

[Stan Tamudo]

Or Swami.

 

He twists and wriggles like a big twisty wriggly thing.

 

You don't have to flatter the geezer!

[firemanbob]

In which case what brought you to say, "The only people that appear to benefit from it are criminals and extremists."

 

It "appears" to me that you were at least implying that criminals and extremists benefited and no one else did.

 

As the link I provided proves that is a falsehood!

 

From your link.

 

The Act has been used to hold the police to account for failing to investigate rape and human trafficking,

but hasn't stopped them from failing to investigate rape and human trafficking.

Their rulings have meant compensation for minors who were abused but ignored by social services,

but hasn't stopped them from being abused and ignored by social services.

Human-rights laws have helped to trigger the right to access to life-saving drugs,

but drugs are still withheld because of the expense.

Article 2 of the ECHR – the right to life – was used to establish that any failure properly to equip British soldiers serving abroad would constitute a breach of their rights.

but they still went in lacking some basic equipment.

The HRA has been used to stop councils from misusing CCTV surveillance,

but hasn't stopped them misusing CCTV.

The Human Rights Act as however stopped our government from deporting criminals, terrorists, illegal immigrants, its awarded compensation to criminals, given more rights to criminals than their victims.

[RootsBooster]

Or Swami.

 

He twists and wriggles like a big twisty wriggly thing.

 

Very much like Smiffy (and the rest), actually.

 

---------- Post added 04-10-2014 at 22:21 ----------

 

So yesterday the Tories opened the frontal attack on UKIP by aiming to appease the deserting vote by stating they will effectively leave the European Convention of Human Rights (introduced by Churchill, no not the insurer) by introducing a British Bill of Human Rights.

 

So what do you want in it that isn't in the European Convention of Human Rights? Or, what part of the ECHR do you specifically not want in the BBHR?

 

I wouldn't mind the right to live under a seperation of Church and State.

[Lotusflower]

From your link.

 

but hasn't stopped them from failing to investigate rape and human trafficking.

but hasn't stopped them from being abused and ignored by social services.

but drugs are still withheld because of the expense.

but they still went in lacking some basic equipment.

but hasn't stopped them misusing CCTV.

The Human Rights Act as however stopped our government from deporting criminals, terrorists, illegal immigrants, its awarded compensation to criminals, given more rights to criminals than their victims.

 

You are so transparent!

 

You've spent nearly a whole page in denial but in this post you've finally come clean.

 

None of your attempts above to deny the gains made under the Act work.

You haven't disproved one single benefit the Act has brought as outlined in the link. All you've done is pointed out that things are still not perfect and on that point alone I agree with you. They are definitely better since the Act though!

 

I'm not denying that the things you say are still happening, however, because of the Act redress can now be sought legally and the truth is less likely to be buried than it was previously.

 

Yes the Act has hindered the government in some attempts to deport certain people but that is wholly necessary in a society that wishes to have these freedoms. Unfortunate but necessary!

 

If you are one of the people who believe this government's intentions in wishing to withdraw from the ECHR are purely for the reason of getting rid of criminals and extremists alone then I have to tell you that I consider you gullible in the extreme.

I'm not trying to cause offence with that statement either.

[tzijlstra]

I wouldn't mind the right to live under a seperation of Church and State.

 

That is an interesting point, should that be guaranteed by a human rights bill or are you seeing this as a move to a complete constitution for the UK?

[firemanbob]

You are so transparent!

 

As are you.

You've spent nearly a whole page in denial but in this post you've finally come clean.

 

None of your attempts above to deny the gains made under the Act work.

You haven't disproved one single benefit the Act has brought as outlined in the link. All you've done is pointed out that things are still not perfect and on that point alone I agree with you. They are definitely better since the Act though!

 

I'm not denying that the things you say are still happening, however, because of the Act redress can now be sought legally and the truth is less likely to be buried than it was previously.

 

Yes the Act has hindered the government in some attempts to deport certain people but that is wholly necessary in a society that wishes to have these freedoms. Unfortunate but necessary!

 

If you are one of the people who believe this government's intentions in wishing to withdraw from the ECHR are purely for the reason of getting rid of criminals and extremists alone then I have to tell you that I consider you gullible in the extreme.

I'm not trying to cause offence with that statement either.

 

I haven't tried to disproved one single benefit of the Act, I have simply expressed my opinion which you have failed to change. If you are one of these conspiracy theorists that believe our lives will worsen if we withdraw from the ECHR I consider you to be gullible in the extreme.

 

 

 

"At the heart of the reform will be a new British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities that will restore common sense to the application of human rights in the UK. A draft of the Bill will be published for consultation before Christmas. Among other things the Bill will stop terrorists and other serious foreign criminals who pose a threat to our society from using human rights to prevent deportation. It will make it clear that people have clear responsibilities to society, and that there is a proper balance between rights and responsibilities in British law.

 

The Bill will remain faithful to the basic principles of human rights which the United Kingdom signed up to in the original European Human Rights Convention, but it will reverse the mission creep that has meant human rights law being used for more and more purposes, and often with little regard for the rights of society as a whole.

 

The new measure will:

 

Repeal Labour’s 1998 Human Rights Act.

Break the formal link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights. In future Britain’s courts will no longer be required to take into account rulings from the Court in Strasbourg. This will make our Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of human rights matters in the UK.

End the ability of the European Court to require the UK to change British laws. Every judgement against the UK will be treated as advisory and will have to be approved by Parliament if it is to lead to a change in our laws.

Define much more clearly when and how Human Rights laws in the UK are to be applied. This will end the ability of the Courts to decide unilaterally to apply Human Rights laws to whole new areas of public life.

Limit the use of Human Rights laws to the most serious cases. They will no longer apply in trivial cases.

Balance rights and responsibilities. People who do not fulfil their responsibilities in society should not be able to claim so-called “qualified rights” in their defence in a court of law.

Ensure that those who pose a national security risk to this country or have entered it illegally cannot rely on questionable human rights claims to prevent their deportation."

 

The Rt Hon Lord Howard of Lympne, CH, QC said:

 

“The argument is not about human rights, to which we all subscribe. No, the argument today is whether arrangements such as the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act actually help to protect such rights or, by the way in which they have operated, bring the concept into disrepute.

 

“Certainly, the way in which the Convention on Human Rights has been interpreted is far removed from its founders’ intentions.

 

“We are simply restoring parliamentary sovereignty, and some much needed common sense, to our human rights laws.”

http://jackofkent.com/2014/10/exclusive-tory-proposals-for-bill-of-rights/

Edited October 5, 2014 by firemanbob

[tzijlstra]

So one of the things they want to do is to be able to deport terrorists (funny how a caseload of thousands of cases can be reduced to this one case to demonstrate relevance of the ECHR).

 

How are they going to amend the human rights act that exists (in the ECHR) to enable that and can you tell me whether that would impede on the rights of us, as citizens somehow?

 

This is a challenge, I know, but I'd like to see you try and demonstrate why it is valid and fair and in accordance with human rights for a government to deport its citizens to another country if they prove a nuisance. At what point does that stop? Are we going to deport mass-murderers to an island in the Atlantic that they can never get off again? What about these paedophiles?

 

You see where I am going with this?

[firemanbob]

So one of the things they want to do is to be able to deport terrorists (funny how a caseload of thousands of cases can be reduced to this one case to demonstrate relevance of the ECHR).

 

How are they going to amend the human rights act that exists (in the ECHR) to enable that and can you tell me whether that would impede on the rights of us, as citizens somehow?

 

This is a challenge, I know, but I'd like to see you try and demonstrate why it is valid and fair and in accordance with human rights for a government to deport its citizens to another country if they prove a nuisance. At what point does that stop? Are we going to deport mass-murderers to an island in the Atlantic that they can never get off again? What about these paedophiles?

 

You see where I am going with this?

 

I very much doubt but its not a bad idea, maybe one of the many uninhabited Scottish islands would suffice.

[cgksheff]

...........

 

You see where I am going with this?

 

Yes.

You may be going in the wrong direction.

 

The proposers are not seeking to deport UK citizens.

They simply want to deport visitors and illegal immigrants that have committed serious crimes.

They also want the 'rights' of such offenders to take second place to the 'rights' of the victim.

 

When an illegal immigrant commits rape, the right of the victim to justice should supercede the 'right to family life' of the offender.

[andyofborg]

“We are simply restoring parliamentary sovereignty, and some much needed common sense, to our human rights laws.”

 

The problem with that is that the ECHR and Human Rights Act is designed to protect the citizen from parliament.

 

If parliament can decide, without external reference, what human rights you have it can also decide what human rights you dont have.

 

Over the last few years we've seen a number of authortarian measures from both the conservative and labour governments, from the various snoopers charters, to imprisonment without trial. What stopped and limited these was the ECHR and human rights. It's all very well saying these will only apply to muslims but it's clear from the way several councils used the ripa legislation to spy on families that the scope will very quietly creep to everyone.

 

---------- Post added 05-10-2014 at 10:02 ----------

 

When an illegal immigrant commits rape, the right of the victim to justice should supercede the 'right to family life' of the offender.

 

but what about the right of the offenders family to a life? are they to be punished too?

 

when anyone commits rape and are found guilty by a court then they are imprisioned. once the sentence has been served the prisoner is released and apart from any necessary monitoring they are free to resume their lives.