British Bill of Rights - what do you want in it

[charmer]

Either you are deliberately misunderstanding my point or you are attempting to avoid answering the question.

 

The question was simple.

 

The politician has to make a choice between what he/she knows is the right long term policy as far as the country's future is concerned and what he/she knows is wrong for the country but will benefit them and their party.

 

Now please stop equivocating and answer the question.

 

Which option would the majority of politicians choose?

 

 

I think he has answered.

 

He has said they would choose the popular one, which is what they are supposed to do as they are servants of the people, not servants of their intellect.

 

This is what a democracy is supposed to be, government exercising the will of the people. Not the will of someone who thinks they know what is best.

[Magilla]

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.

 

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.

 

Not that I've voted for them in the past, but on this alone I couldn't/wouldn't now.

[Mecky]

Ah yes, the Daily Mail, the newspaper that sorts the wheat from the chaff ... and then publishes the chaff

[L00b]

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.

I had the Tories down as smarter than to drop the political debate to the lowest common denominator and engaging UKIP

 

A political mistake which cost Sarkozy very dear in 2012 (he took the exact same out-populisting-the-populists approach with the Front National swing voters on the run up to the presidential election).

[Cyclone]

I don't read the tabloids and why would I need to study lots of cases in order to form an opinion?

You can form an opinion on little data I suppose, but don't expect anyone to take it seriously.

If you don't actually know what the ECHR does, then what exactly are you forming your opinion on?

 

Thinking that something is the right thing to do doesn't mean that it is, and if the majority of the electorate think it isn't the right thing to do then politicians should respect that opinion,

The majority of the electorate would vote for tax cuts if you asked them.

Not a policy that would actually be practical or "right" for the country, but one based on little thought and even less data.

The point of electing someone to make decisions is that they have the time and hopefully intellect to actually investigate issues and thus make intelligent decisions.

The masses don't have the time, and in some cases the ability, to do that, which is why we don't run the country by plebiscite.

[Zamo]

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!

[tzijlstra]

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!

 

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?

[mjw47]

I think he has answered.

 

He has said they would choose the popular one, which is what they are supposed to do as they are servants of the people, not servants of their intellect.

 

This is what a democracy is supposed to be, government exercising the will of the people. Not the will of someone who thinks they know what is best.

 

You have a completely incorrect idea of how democracy works.

 

In a democracy politicians have to present themselves and their intended policies to the people.

 

The people then choose and vote in the politicians that they feel will do the best job.

 

That is where the will of the people starts and ends.

 

The politicians are then given the responsibility of spending their time keeping abreast of all matters which may effect their constituents, and the country at large.

 

They are our proxy representatives.

 

"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion"

 

Edmund Burke.

 

Regarded as the finest political philosopher who ever lived.

 

Full quote here http://www.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke

 

If democracy worked as you suggest then politicians could be made redundant and we could simply organize an online vote on all matters.

 

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.

[Alan Ladd]

Why? They allow so called 'hate speech' in the USA and seem to be none the worse off for it.

 

Have you spent any time there? Last time I was lectured on my failure to arm myself just in case the Spanish attacked again. (I am serious) notwithstanding the last time they did was when Elizabeth 1st was on the throne.

 

Many Americans are nutty as fruit cakes, they are driven paranoid by the "hate speech" ranters that pervade their tvs and radios.

[firemanbob]

You can form an opinion on little data I suppose, but don't expect anyone to take it seriously.

If you don't actually know what the ECHR does, then what exactly are you forming your opinion on?

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

 

 

The majority of the electorate would vote for tax cuts if you asked them.

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

 

 

Not a policy that would actually be practical or "right" for the country, but one based on little thought and even less data.

The point of electing someone to make decisions is that they have the time and hopefully intellect to actually investigate issues and thus make intelligent decisions.

The masses don't have the time, and in some cases the ability, to do that, which is why we don't run the country by plebiscite.

 

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.

 

---------- Post added 06-10-2014 at 14:11 ----------

 

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?

 

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