Actfortheact - Save the human rights act now

[No6]

But is often opposite to that of our own judges interpretation of the very same rights. Who's opinion do you want? Our own judges who have served the country for years or those appointed to the court in Strasbourg who in some cases have never served as a judge before?

This is the problem of deferring to a foreign court. We are not responsible for the selection of their judges and they have no interest in the nation. Their opinion is not tempered by the reality of national life. This is why they put a specious claim of right to family life over the security of a nation and the opinion of it's people.

It's not a foreign court though. It's a supranational court, ruling on cases specific to a convention that the UK was instrumental in establishing in the wake of WWII. It is, and never has been nor ever will be, a court under the jurisdiction of any foreign nation.

If it's not a UK court what is it?

I think you're playing games.

as I said its a supranational court. For a similar example think of the International Courts of Justice (in The Hague I believe?). They rule on war crimes cases etc. Now, although they are based in the Netherlands, they are not a Dutch or foreign court. They fall under the jurisdiction of no single country. It is the same with the ECHR and its associated court in Strasbourg. I think the mistake people make is in thinking the HR court which acts at the behest of the ECHR is in some way an arm of the EU/EEC.

Let me be clear, I'm not playing games. I'm just keen for people to see the ECHR and it's court for what it is: a hard fought for institution established to protect minorities and vulnerable peoples across Europe, not a "meddling" department of the EU.

 

[urmston]

The act is a dead duck.

The Tories have a majority.

In the run up to the repeal of the act the press will remind us all of the daft decisions we've had because of the act.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8570639/102-foreign-criminals-and-illegal-immigrants-we-cant-deport.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... eport.html</a>

Labour won't rock the boat because they'll look like the losers they are just as they are trying to build a new, sensible image.

 

[No6]

The act is a dead duck.

The Tories have a majority.

In the run up to the repeal of the act the press will remind us all of the daft decisions we've had because of the act.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8570639/102-foreign-criminals-and-illegal-immigrants-we-cant-deport.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... eport.html</a>

Labour won't rock the boat because they'll look like the losers they are just as they are trying to build a new, sensible image.

LOL, what an odd little chap

Why do you keep bringing this back to party politics? We're debating (well, one of is) the pros and cons of internationally established standards on basic human rights. It has fuck all to do with who's in power or who brought the act in. Are you not able to grasp that petal?

May I suggest you stop thumping, put down your tub and perhaps take a little less myopic view of the world and its issues?

I get the impression you think I'm a Labour supporter, PMSL. Try again kid.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

It's not a foreign court though. It's a supranational court, ruling on cases specific to a convention that the UK was instrumental in establishing in the wake of WWII. It is, and never has been nor ever will be, a court under the jurisdiction of any foreign nation.

If it's not a UK court what is it?

I think you're playing games.

as I said its a supranational court. For a similar example think of the International Courts of Justice (in The Hague I believe?). They rule on war crimes cases etc. Now, although they are based in the Netherlands, they are not a Dutch or foreign court. They fall under the jurisdiction of no single country. It is the same with the ECHR and its associated court in Strasbourg. I think the mistake people make is in thinking the HR court which acts at the behest of the ECHR is in some way an arm of the EU/EEC.

Let me be clear, I'm not playing games. I'm just keen for people to see the ECHR and it's court for what it is: a hard fought for institution established to protect minorities and vulnerable peoples across Europe, not a "meddling" department of the EU.

If you took the time to read my posts in this and other threads you would be in no doubt of my understanding of the ECHR relationship with the EU. I have made clear the difference but also the fact that EU membership requires ECHR compliance. It does not however require a nation to enshrine the opinions of the court of strasbourg into their national laws as the previous government did. This is why most major European nations do not have an equivalent of our human rights act and are not bound to have one.
We thought we were setting a standard but it is shown to be a flawed piece of legislation which will be repealed by our elected government as made clear in their election manifesto. It will be replaced by a more appropriate piece of legislation after which we will only have ourselves to blame when our judges make rulings. This is how it should be. There is nothing wrong with the ECHR. It is the interpretation of others which is not in line with our own judges which is the problem. This costs the nation dearly in both monetary terms with legal aidded cases going on for years of appeal after appeal and in terms of securing national security.


The comparison with the International court of Justice is specious as the two courts operate for and in completely different reasons and methods. If the ECtHR (the court) worked in the same way, i.e. "settle legal disputes submitted to it by states and to provide advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by duly authorized international branches, agencies," then there would be no problem. But it doesn't provide advisory opinions because our little HRA makes their opinion final.

The HRA is to blame, not the court or the ECHR. That is why this government will repeal the HRA and put the ECtHR back where it was, and advisory body who's opinion is not deemed higher than our own high court where National Security is concerned.

 

[urmston]

The act is a dead duck.

The Tories have a majority.

In the run up to the repeal of the act the press will remind us all of the daft decisions we've had because of the act.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8570639/102-foreign-criminals-and-illegal-immigrants-we-cant-deport.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... eport.html</a>

Labour won't rock the boat because they'll look like the losers they are just as they are trying to build a new, sensible image.

LOL, what an odd little chap

Why do you keep bringing this back to party politics? We're debating (well, one of is) the pros and cons of internationally established standards on basic human rights. It has fuck all to do with who's in power or who brought the act in. Are you not able to grasp that petal?

May I suggest you stop thumping, put down your tub and perhaps take a little less myopic view of the world and its issues?

I get the impression you think I'm a Labour supporter, PMSL. Try again kid.

I get the impression you are quite easily riled when people won't agree with you.

 

[Andy Dale]

Scrap the ECHR aggreement.
Its pretty clear to even the most gormless twat in England , that it is totally abused by any criminal that fancies his/her chances. Imagine the headlines . . . .
BOTSWANAN IMMIGRANT DRUG DEALER KILLS WHOLE FAMILY .
BOILS AND EATS THEIR BRAINS.
AVOIDS JAIL AND DEPORTATION AS IT AFFECTS HIS RIGHT TO A FAMILY LIFE.

BOLLOCKS . . . BIG , MASSIVE BOLLOCKS.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Scrap the ECHR aggreement.
Its pretty clear to even the most gormless twat in England , that it is totally abused by any criminal that fancies his/her chances. Imagine the headlines . . . .
BOTSWANAN IMMIGRANT DRUG DEALER KILLS WHOLE FAMILY .
BOILS AND EATS THEIR BRAINS.
AVOIDS JAIL AND DEPORTATION AS IT AFFECTS HIS RIGHT TO A FAMILY LIFE.

BOLLOCKS . . . BIG , MASSIVE BOLLOCKS.

That's quite a big headline. Presumably not from a tabloid.

 

[Rascal]

Scrap the ECHR aggreement.
Its pretty clear to even the most gormless twat in England , that it is totally abused by any criminal that fancies his/her chances. Imagine the headlines . . . .
BOTSWANAN IMMIGRANT DRUG DEALER KILLS WHOLE FAMILY .
BOILS AND EATS THEIR BRAINS.
AVOIDS JAIL AND DEPORTATION AS IT AFFECTS HIS RIGHT TO A FAMILY LIFE.

BOLLOCKS . . . BIG , MASSIVE BOLLOCKS.

I bet you believe in fairies too.

 

[stonerblue]

Yeah. it's a load of shit.....

A rape victim will receive a £20,000 out-of-court settlement after a police force apologised for failing to investigate her complaint properly and arresting her.
The woman, who was 17 at the time of the rape in 2012, tried to kill herself after she was told she could face charges for lying about the attack.
Her rapist was convicted and jailed for five years in 2013.
Hampshire Constabulary said it was "sorry for how we let her down".
The woman's lawyer Debaleena Dasgupta told the BBC she had been able to seek justice only because of the Human Rights Act, and said her client was concerned about plans to repeal it.
'Horrified'
Laura, which is not her real name, was at a house with friends after a night out when she was raped by a man who was part of the group.
Laura reported the rape to police in Winchester, but her mother - "Jackie" - told the BBC the officers who responded "weren't very sympathetic".
Laura told officers she believed there was forensic evidence on her T-shirt, which implicated her attacker.
The police did not carry out a full test and failed to find any evidence, Jackie said.
Police later arrested Laura on suspicion of perverting the course of justice.
"I was horrified," said Jackie.
"A woman comes forward and tells the police authority she has been raped: You expect them to do everything they can to put the rapist away."
If it can happen to my daughter, how many more can it happen to?
"Jackie", Rape victim's mother
Jackie believes the officers' attitude to her daughter was influenced by the fact she had been in trouble with the police in the past.
Her daughter also had mental health problems.
Following the arrest, Jackie said Laura started self-harming again, before trying to commit suicide twice "because she couldn't cope".
"She just couldn't believe she wasn't believed," Jackie said.
Written warning
Four months after her arrest, detectives visited Laura to tell her they believed her story.
The Crown Prosecution Service had asked for the T-shirt to be thoroughly tested and the rapist was charged.
Laura began proceedings against Hampshire Constabulary using the Human Rights Act.
The force decided to settle out of court and investigated a number of officers involved in the case.
The initial officers involved did not treat this victim in a way that she or any other victim would deserve to be treated. We deeply regret this
Ch Supt David Powell, Hampshire Constabulary
One was given a written warning and three others were allowed to resign or retire during the internal investigation.
Jackie said: "I think it is disgusting.
"If you're in the middle of an investigation and you've been named, they shouldn't let you resign or retire, because you are answerable to that."
She added: "I'm glad that they have admitted that they were wrong.
"But... if it can happen to my daughter, how many more can it happen to?"
Ms Dasgupta added: "Without the Human Rights Act, Laura would not have been able to seek justice for the shocking way she was treated by the police."
She told the BBC they had been able to take action under Article 3 of the act, which relates to inhuman or degrading treatment.
She said: "If the police don't investigate a rape properly, you can argue that they have breached your human rights and only in those circumstance can you get justice... There is no other duty under common law in order to do that."
The government plans to scrap the act and introduce a British Bill of Rights to "break the formal link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights" and make the UK's Supreme Court "the ultimate arbiter of human right matters", according to the Conservative party's manifesto.

 

[bluemanc]

The HRA is no longer fit for purpose,can't see why a British Bill of Rights being introduced is an issue other than Gove is having input into its being.
HRA has been used & abused to the point where solicitors/lawyers use it as a stick on this Country & its people.
Get rid.