Actfortheact - Save the human rights act now

[urmston]

Some of you may remember a campaign my wife and I led last year, stillachildat17, which led to a change in the law regarding the treatment of 17-year-olds in custody. We are now supporting and featuring in a campaign to protect the human rights act which we were beneficiaries of this year in our grueling inquest following our daughters death following custody. If you like us are seriously concerned by the governments plans to abolish the act in this country, please have a look at the following link. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/actfortheact" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/actfortheact</a>
Regardless of your political biase, this may be of interest to you, and will certainly be big news in the coming months. Please make sure you share this on your social media.
Thanks blues
Matt

Still a child at 17?

Labour party policy is votes for 16 year olds, presumably because it thinks they are not children. The HRA was Labour's idea.

There is no need for the HRA. The UK has a reasonably good record on human rights over the years - for example we led the campaign to abolish slavery in the 19th century, and we accepted lots of refugees from mainland Europe in the last 300 years who were fleeing political and racial persecution - so there is no need for us to defer to a European court on these matters.

Anyone who thinks we do has a very low opinion of their fellow UK citizens.

 

[nahnahrickyholden]

Some of you may remember a campaign my wife and I led last year, stillachildat17, which led to a change in the law regarding the treatment of 17-year-olds in custody. We are now supporting and featuring in a campaign to protect the human rights act which we were beneficiaries of this year in our grueling inquest following our daughters death following custody. If you like us are seriously concerned by the governments plans to abolish the act in this country, please have a look at the following link. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/actfortheact" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/actfortheact</a>
Regardless of your political biase, this may be of interest to you, and will certainly be big news in the coming months. Please make sure you share this on your social media.
Thanks blues
Matt

Still a child at 17?

Labour party policy is votes for 16 year olds, presumably because it thinks they are not children. The HRA was Labour's idea.

There is no need for the HRA. The UK has a reasonably good record on human rights over the years - for example we led the campaign to abolish slavery in the 19th century, and we accepted lots of refugees from mainland Europe in the last 300 years who were fleeing political and racial persecution - so there is no need for us to defer to a European court on these matters.

Anyone who thinks we do has a very low opinion of their fellow UK citizens.

Yes at 17 everyone is still classed as a child, regardless of anyone's policy. Fact.
This is not about deferring to a European court, it's about protecting the rights of everyone in the country, in particular the most vulnerable, in truth it's a very worrying prospect. Do not be fooled by the HRA myths, and thank you for your thoughts, I appreciate your comments on this rather than resorting to telling the world what colour socks you have on, on certain other threads!

 

[jazzy]

Scrap it and bring back the death sentence .

 

[urmston]

Some of you may remember a campaign my wife and I led last year, stillachildat17, which led to a change in the law regarding the treatment of 17-year-olds in custody. We are now supporting and featuring in a campaign to protect the human rights act which we were beneficiaries of this year in our grueling inquest following our daughters death following custody. If you like us are seriously concerned by the governments plans to abolish the act in this country, please have a look at the following link. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/actfortheact" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/actfortheact</a>
Regardless of your political biase, this may be of interest to you, and will certainly be big news in the coming months. Please make sure you share this on your social media.
Thanks blues
Matt

Still a child at 17?

Labour party policy is votes for 16 year olds, presumably because it thinks they are not children. The HRA was Labour's idea.

There is no need for the HRA. The UK has a reasonably good record on human rights over the years - for example we led the campaign to abolish slavery in the 19th century, and we accepted lots of refugees from mainland Europe in the last 300 years who were fleeing political and racial persecution - so there is no need for us to defer to a European court on these matters.

Anyone who thinks we do has a very low opinion of their fellow UK citizens.

Yes at 17 everyone is still classed as a child, regardless of anyone's policy. Fact.
This is not about deferring to a European court, it's about protecting the rights of everyone in the country, in particular the most vulnerable, in truth it's a very worrying prospect. Do not be fooled by the HRA myths, and thank you for your thoughts, I appreciate your comments on this rather than resorting to telling the world what colour socks you have on, on certain other threads!

I would like to know why you place trust in a European court above a UK one on matters of human rights.

Both my parents can remember a time when courts in Europe's dominant country, Germany, were controlled by a racist regime. Horrific racist laws were passed. Millions were killed.

I can remember a fascist regime in Europe which didn't end until 1975, and many people can remember the time when many European countries were ruled by a totalitarian, communist regime in Moscow.

Europe does not have a long and glowing record on human rights.

So why should the UK now defer to Europe on matters concerning human rights?

 

[jazzy]

Scrap it and bring back the death sentence .

 

[Rascal]

Still a child at 17?

Labour party policy is votes for 16 year olds, presumably because it thinks they are not children. The HRA was Labour's idea.

There is no need for the HRA. The UK has a reasonably good record on human rights over the years - for example we led the campaign to abolish slavery in the 19th century, and we accepted lots of refugees from mainland Europe in the last 300 years who were fleeing political and racial persecution - so there is no need for us to defer to a European court on these matters.

Anyone who thinks we do has a very low opinion of their fellow UK citizens.

Yes at 17 everyone is still classed as a child, regardless of anyone's policy. Fact.
This is not about deferring to a European court, it's about protecting the rights of everyone in the country, in particular the most vulnerable, in truth it's a very worrying prospect. Do not be fooled by the HRA myths, and thank you for your thoughts, I appreciate your comments on this rather than resorting to telling the world what colour socks you have on, on certain other threads!

I would like to know why you place trust in a European court above a UK one on matters of human rights.

Both my parents can remember a time when courts in Europe's dominant country, Germany, were controlled by a racist regime. Horrific racist laws were passed. Millions were killed.

I can remember a fascist regime in Europe which didn't end until 1975, and many people can remember the time when many European countries were ruled by a totalitarian, communist regime in Moscow.

Europe does not have a long and glowing record on human rights.

So why should the UK now defer to Europe on matters concerning human rights?

All that yet Churchill himself was intrumental in setting up the ECHR

He more than anyone would understand that individuals need rights protected. Its the individuals who need protection from the masses you refer too.

The HRA enshrines our individual rights in law. The rights of the individual against the masses are sacrosanct. The fact when a UK court cannot protect a person, they have the right to go to the ECHR which is backed up by 47 member states.

What makes you think we are so different to the other 46 signatories and what makes you think any individual wants human rights akin to those in Belarus?

 

[Rascal]

Scrap it and bring back the death sentence .

That is the sort of well argued post that marks this forum out.

Well done.

 

[urmston]

Yes at 17 everyone is still classed as a child, regardless of anyone's policy. Fact.
This is not about deferring to a European court, it's about protecting the rights of everyone in the country, in particular the most vulnerable, in truth it's a very worrying prospect. Do not be fooled by the HRA myths, and thank you for your thoughts, I appreciate your comments on this rather than resorting to telling the world what colour socks you have on, on certain other threads!

I would like to know why you place trust in a European court above a UK one on matters of human rights.

Both my parents can remember a time when courts in Europe's dominant country, Germany, were controlled by a racist regime. Horrific racist laws were passed. Millions were killed.

I can remember a fascist regime in Europe which didn't end until 1975, and many people can remember the time when many European countries were ruled by a totalitarian, communist regime in Moscow.

Europe does not have a long and glowing record on human rights.

So why should the UK now defer to Europe on matters concerning human rights?

All that yet Churchill himself was intrumental in setting up the ECHR

He more than anyone would understand that individuals need rights protected. Its the individuals who need protection from the masses you refer too.

The HRA enshrines our individual rights in law. The rights of the individual against the masses are sacrosanct. The fact when a UK court cannot protect a person, they have the right to go to the ECHR which is backed up by 47 member states.

What makes you think we are so different to the other 46 signatories and what makes you think any individual wants human rights akin to those in Belarus?

My last post explains why I don't think we need any guidance on human rights from most countries in Europe.

Within living memory the most horrific outrages against human rights have been committed in Europe - the Nazi Holocaust, the Soviet 1930s genocide in the Ukraine, the atrocities of Spanish civil war, the French campaign in Algeria, the killings as Yugoslavia disintegrated.

We need no lessons in human rights from Europe.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Really?

What other EU states were active complicit participants in the extraordinary renditioning of suspects, or kidnap by any other definition, to be taken to GuantanAmo Bay?

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Really?

What other EU states were active complicit participants in the extraordinary renditioning of suspects, or kidnap by any other definition, to be taken to GuantanAmo Bay?