You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Have we done this yet?
http://jackofkent.com/2014/10/exclusive-tory-proposals-for-bill-of-rights/
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
Very, very scary.
Not applicable in Scotland...
That is debatable, apparently - not quite that simple.
Anyhow, still very, very worrying for those South of the border.
thankfully, will never happen, theyd need a majority government of complete *****
Wtf is fulfilling your responsibility in society?
Going to the right school.
The Tory Party is only part of the problem.
Another part of the problem is the electorate, much of which lets the Sun, Daily Mail, Telegraph, etc.
do their thinking for them.
[img] 
[/img]
And yet other problem of course is the ineffective, at best, and nonexistent at worse, opposition.
But then we only have ourselves to blame.
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
seems pretty straight forward to me - "[i]People who commit serious crimes in the UK, and in doing so infringe upon the basic rights of others, should lose their right to claim the right to stay here under the right to family life. So for example, a foreign criminal, guilty of causing death by dangerous driving and so taking away the rights of another citizen, would not be able to claim family rights to stay in the UK.[/i]"
There are plenty of well publicised heart wrenching stories of families who have seen loved ones die at the hands of people who shouldn't have been living in the country yet we are powerless to remove them.
Would the EU allow any UK govt to derogate from the EHCR?
There are plenty of well publicised heart wrenching stories of families who have seen loved ones die at the hands of people who shouldn't have been living in the country yet we are powerless to remove them.
no there aren't, the stories are all made up by the Daily Mail
Deranged loons trying hard to outloon UKIP loons
Limit the reach of human rights cases to the UK, so that British Armed forces overseas are not subject to persistent human rights claims that undermine their ability to do their job and keep us safe.
The world is our Guantanamo !
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
Having not read the article, I presume this means that we can now loot the offices and assets of tax avoiding non-doms and there's nothing they can do about it? 😀
The Human Rights Act and Convention are really important pieces of legislation, and I'd be reluctant to play around with either.
BUT
The way some crafty lawyers have wasted millions of pounds twisting them to enable - frankly - criminal scum and/or dangerous nutters to carry on undermining or threatening wider society concerns me.
I'm not sure how me or anyone can start to square the circle though.
big_n_daft - Memberno there aren't, the stories are all made up by the Daily Mail
Of course they're all true !
Does anyone else, upon seeing a picture or footage of Ms May, just get Monty Pyhton and The Holy Grail - She's a witch, burn her sketch in their head?
Hateful, horrid woman...
what i dont get is that under her stewardship the UKBA has lurched from one crisis to the next, yet shes still seen as a likely leadership candidate
She's a witch
[img] 
[/img]
There are plenty of well publicised heart wrenching stories of families who have seen loved ones die at the hands of people who shouldn't have been living in the country yet we are powerless to remove them.
Except that the people being referred to do have the right to live in this country, DC would like to remove that right.
[quote=kimbers said]what i dont get is that under her stewardship the UKBA has lurched from one crisis to the next, yet shes still seen as a likely leadership candidate
Do the tories just have a thing for evil incompetent witches?
A proper written constitution first would be a better idea, to stop this making things up as we go by the executive and the judiciary. The ECHR is fit for purpose it's the government by reasonable suspicion (see the proposals for restricting free speech put up by "the witch" at this weeks Tory conference) that needs reining in.
Willie Whitelaw had the right idea when these things were tried with him "Nice try now go away and work within the law".
I like David Allen-Green. There are few lawyers around who make complex legal discussions both accessible and understandable in a real life context.
I've been following his tweets closely, and agree with his assessment: this is an incredibly dangerous proposal. In effect, it changes the understood concept of human rights being the entrenched rights if the citizen against the state exceeding it's power, to the state being able to determine the extent if that reach first.
Thin end if the wedge.
kimbers - Memberwhat i dont get is that under her stewardship the UKBA has lurched from one crisis to the next, yet shes still seen as a likely leadership candidate
Kind of incredible isn't it. I suppose she's a tory feedback loop. ZOMFG TEH IMMIGRATIONZ we must act! Incompetently! Causing immigration problems! ZOMFG TEH IMMIGRATIONZ we must act!
uselesshippy - Member
Wtf is fulfilling your responsibility in society?
POSTED 1 HOUR AGO #
resisting stupid legislation like this.
Under these proposals, we basically no longer have human rights, we have rewards for being good little citizens.
Subjects...not citizens, shirley?
We are Her Majesty's [i]subjects[/i] *, we are CMD's [i]Puppets[/i] to be manipulated as the Tories see fit.
* - That's a fight for some other time.
Under these proposals, we basically no longer have human rights, we have rewards for being good little citizens.
Remember, Britain is still a country ruled mostly by Normans. Nothings really changed in 1000 years.
That's what you are to them, a dirty serf. I heard that kind of attitude from pupils at a private that I will not mention day in and day out when I was in my late teens.
We are Her Majesty's subjects *
citizenship has been in place since the British Nationality Act 1948 (or was it 1947) at least
Remember, Britain is still a country ruled mostly by Normans.
Well that's an eyeopener. So his name's not really Dave ?
The thing thats top of the list of why to despise Dave and chums is their absolutely breathtaking arrogance! They seem to regard themselves as some kind of imperial power, that sees the British Constitution (such as it is), and now our Human Rights as some kind of gift to their 'subjects' that they can apply or withdraw to suit their own interests, on a whim. Just look how they've viewed the Scottish referendum result as an opportunity for a bout of shameless gerrymandering.
Which is why they loath the ECHR so much. It serves as a brake on them being able to do what the hell they damn well feel like.
A bill of rights? I wouldn't trust this opportunistic bunch of shysters to write a shopping list
So because a handful of dirtbags allegedly misuse the HRA for their own gain none of us get to have rights...
This is how dictators think.
there would be no pasties or pork scratchings on it so you are wise to not trust them
The Tory Party is only part of the problem.Another part of the problem is the electorate, much of which lets the Sun, Daily Mail, Telegraph, etc.
do their thinking for them.
@epic, this is truely priceless. We live in a democracy and removing the ECHR right to overule our courts is what the majority want.
Hardly anyone reads the papers anymore, what you are seeing in these polls is what the public think. Real Human Rights supporters should campaign for convicted criminals not holding UK passports to be able to deported as by defending those individuals they have undermined their own case.
Of course we'll will have rights. We will have rights determined by a UK Bill just not by an EU Bill. To argue that the EU is able to determine human rights but a British parliament cannot is insulting. To suggest we will not have rights is simply daft.
You are Nigel Farage, and I claim my enormous EU parliamentary expenses claim!
[img] 
[/img]
Cheers! 😆
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."
Well he may have a point there.
ta argue that the ECHR is any way shape or form linked with the EU is inuslting daft and wrong
It is done by the council of europe who are completely and utterly independent of and unrelated to the EU- FAIL.
One wonders if the mass media have somehow had a role in conflating the two in the minds of the largely ill educate public? What do you think?
To suggest we will not have rights is simply daft.
Which is why no one has said it on this thread
Are any of your views based on facts or evidence?
[quote=Junkyard said]
To suggest we will not have rights is simply daft.
Which is why no one has said it on this thread
Are any of your views based on facts or evidence?
[quote=fin25]So because a handful of dirtbags allegedly misuse the HRA for their own gain none of us get to have rights...
This is how dictators think.
So because a handful of dirtbags allegedly misuse the HRA for their own gain none of us get to have rights...
This is how dictators think.
exactly the only european country not signed up is Belarus- europes 'last dictatorship'
Well he may have a point there.
There are rights we have signed up to protect, when we do not adhere to them and then say we will leave and make up our own with our own judges ruling we bring the process into disrepute. Our international standing will be diminished. Its almost Putin in nature. i dont like what the international community says so I am leaving and making up my own rules with the judges I pick saying if i stuck to them
Imagine if it was prosecuting a "tin pot dictatorship" for offences and they responded like this
It is not the action of a civilised or mature democracy.
they shame the nation by suggesting this
@ all the pies 😳
Puts on hat sits in corner
thinks about what he has just done
{ we may have crossed posted hence i missed it ]
😉
Like most of CMD's 'policies' this one sounds like its been dreamt up by a bunch of Sun reading white van men after a few too many down the pub
"I 'eard about this murderer, right, Bulgarian or summit, who they couldn't send to prison, because he had a kitten, or a new puppy, or summit like that, so it'd violate his human rights. I think it was Baz who told me. Its an absolute bloody disgrace whats 'appenin in this country. What, with all these bloody immigrants too. Bloody everywhere nowadays they are. We should right our own bloody bill of rights. We'd make a better job of of it! Oi Tommo, get us a pen from the bar, while you're there, will ya mate? And some pork scratchings "
@Junkyard - this is what @bencooper posted on the first page (in addition to @allthepies post)
Under these proposals, we basically no longer have human rights
@somewhatlightly - I agree totally. Human Rights legislation has been abused and misused and as such discredited.
jambalaya
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
theres so much wiggle room in there that its possible that anyones rights can be discarded
discredited in whose eyes? daily mail readers (im not talking print - their website is in rude help)
Human Rights legislation has been abused and misused and as such discredited.
Whereas what a bunch of increasingly unhinged, right-wing, shamelessly politically motivated, populist, self-serving, tabloid-pandering, UKIP-lite, Tory career politicians come up with as an alternative will be a massive improvement, and doubtless a faultless piece of legalisation, and a legal masterpiece?
🙄
great analysis of the document here;
[url= http://www.headoflegal.com/2014/10/03/protecting-human-rights-in-the-uk-the-tory-human-rights-plan/ ]http://www.headoflegal.com/2014/10/03/protecting-human-rights-in-the-uk-the-tory-human-rights-plan/[/url]
[i]
"The spelling used suggests no lawyer has been involved in drafting the document."[/i]
so chances of there being loop holes that the 'sort of people' (ie. everyone they disagree with) it's designed to let the government of the day deal with as they choose will be able to find legal room to maneuver.
Is it actually possible to end the UK's adherence to the ECHR? It may be a case of being able to sign the convention, but not leave it; so no matter what laws the UK parliament may pass in this regard a UK or European citizen will still have redress to the European courts (via the judicial system of another EU member state if a UK court refuses to hear the case) with the judgement and remedies remaining binding on the UK govt, no matter how the choose to deem any judgement 'advisory'.
The country is all the richer for these people continuing to live here:
http://www.****/news/article-2646634/Mum-killed-baby-deported-human-right-family-life.html
http://www.lbc.co.uk/the-foreign-rioter-we-cant-deport-due-to-human-rights-74574
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/489750/Jamaican-killer-cannot-be-deported-because-of-human-rights
http://www.****/news/article-2519621/Vicious-rapist-deport--right-family-life.html
Daily Mail, Telegraph, Daily Express...
well done robdixon, youve nicely summed up the naive, confused and idiotic stance of the rightwing press and the gullibility of those that swalllow that BS
The whole point of human rights is that they are UNIVERSAL, however uncomfortable that may sometimes be...
We're fond in this country of lecturing the rest of the world about democracy. We're doing it in Iraq. Daves in Afghanistan banging on about it at the moment. The hypocrisy is staggering, but unsurprising is this shameless, oily bunch of shysters.
So what message does this send out then? Yeah... we've decided to abandon a universal commitment to human rights, because bits of it didn't suit our political agenda. So we're going to get some tabloid editors to sketch us a 'Bill of Rights' on the back of a fag packet, and use that instead
that express story ! 😯
Is it actually possible to end the UK's adherence to the ECHR? It may be a case of being able to sign the convention, but not leave it; so no matter what laws the UK parliament may pass in this regard a UK or European citizen will still have redress to the European courts (via the judicial system of another EU member state if a UK court refuses to hear the case) with the judgement and remedies remaining binding on the UK govt, no matter how the choose to deem any judgement 'advisory'.
But that seems to be largely what its actually designed to curb - that we will still be bound by the charter of fundamental rights (and lets remember that most of that charter originated here) however within a framework of UK law, where UK courts and parliament are supreme.
This debate is reminding me of the one we had 12-18 months ago on immigration and how it wasn't an issue according to many here. Now we have UKIP on 20-25% of the vote (I read yesterday there is a decent shot they may overturn the Labour majority in the upcoming by-election and plenty of quotes from Labour voters who where worried about immigration). This is an issue the population cares about, trying to categorise the majority who do as gullible shows what some here think of democracy. Why not produce a list of all the good things the ECHR has done for the UK ?
I love the assumption that rulings made by a selection of mostly foreign judges, often from jurisdictions with less than exemplary systems of jurisprudence, are somehow our last defence against subjugation by the evil Tories.
Yes there is electioneering going on here, but can any of you usual suspects explain to me why the European court should be the final arbiter of justice for British citizens? No arguments about the general principles of the UNHCR are being made here, just their implementation, interpretation and exercise.
My personal view is that we wrote the thing and I generally agree with it. However it's application is a travesty and I don't believe foreign judges should have a right to overrule our legislative system.
@binners what is being proposed is absolutely democratic !
+1, the proposal means that ultimate responsibility rests in the people, via the elected UK parliament, not unelected foreign judges, its more democratic than what we have at the moment.
Yeah... because the motivation for this is the Tory's steadfast commitment to democracy, and their constant championing of the needs of the British people
This would be more democratic? In what way? So what you're saying is that British justice is inherently superior to the justice systems of everybody else signed up to the ECHR?
That just sounds like the kind of typically small-minded, Faragist, little englander mentality peddled by the Mail, and which, rather depressingly, seems to be gripping our political system at the moment
the proposal means that ultimate responsibility rests in the people, via the elected UK parliament, not unelected foreign judges, its more democratic than what we have at the moment.
Sorry..... remind me when we started electing our judges in this country again? I must have missed that one. I got the impression they were pretty much all drawn from the same narrow, unrepresentative elite. If its a choice to who's writing our legal framework between non-political impartial judges (foreign or otherwise), and a bunch of right wing career politicians, I know which I think we'd be safest with
Klunk - Member
that express story !
I know its ridiculous, fails to mention some very important points, that he was found not guilty of murder, and that he was already serving 9 years for manslaughter
terrible reporting
I know its ridiculous, fails to mention some very important points, that he was found not guilty of murder, and that he was already serving 9 years for manslaughterterrible reporting
Like anything found in the right-wing papers bar the Times, their stories are invariably never based on fact as they know their readership are to thick, lazy or outright unwilling to check them.
jambalaya - Member
Why not produce a list of all the good things the ECHR has done for the UK ?
how about the 99.15% ECHR of appeals that go in favour of the UK government according to a lawyer on the news just now
or you can just keep on falling for the politics of fear; hook, line and sinker.
You're suggesting I read the personal opinions of a member of the house of Lords, and view that as some kind of impartial analysis of the ECHR?
A member of an unelected, wholly politically appointed legislature criticising the ECHR as undemocratic? Did you forget to switch your irony filter on this morning? 😆
ah, sorry, are you arguing that he's actually wrong in anything that he says?
or just that you won't listen to him because he's a member of the house of lords?
[i]"Lord Judge (called 1963, Silk 1979) was appointed Lord Justice of Appeal in 1996. He was Senior Presiding Judge for England and Wales (1998-2003), and in 2005 was appointed as the first President of the Queen’s Bench Division."[/i]
I'd say he's likely to know something about the subject...
probably ought to read this then ninfan
If the President is correct, what constitutes a necessity in a democratic society is left, in the ultimate analysis, exclusively, to a body of unelected judges, and has been removed from the legislative body elected through the ordinary democratic processes
The point is, is that certain values should be beyond the scope of democracy - otherwise we end up with Ochlocracy. Putting human rights beyond easy manipulation by politicians as the Americans did with the supreme court and as we did with the ECHR protects those values, meaning that a system of political checks and balances can't be destroyed by the passions of the electorate or the corruption of government.
I don't think I'll be listening to lectures on democratic accountability from an appointed member of the House of Lords, probably the most indefensibly undemocratic legislature this side of a tinpot dictatorship, thanks.
Does anyone know what the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks on the subject?
probably ought to read this then ninfan
Happy to, unlike Binners I thoroughly support the concept of reading and digesting opinions of people with knowledge and experience who might disagree on an issue, because thats how you further your own knowledge 🙂
bainbrge - MemberYes there is electioneering going on here, but can any of you usual suspects explain to me why the European court should be the final arbiter of justice for British citizens?
Simply, because the best way to protect a citizen from their own government is to have a further level of appeal that goes outwith the state.
kimbers - MemberI know its ridiculous, fails to mention some very important points, that he was found not guilty of murder, and that he was already serving 9 years for manslaughter
terrible reporting
???
Express
Johnson was cleared of murder saying he used the sharpened piece of wood and knuckle duster in self defence.
Daily Mail
Drug-dealing killer jailed for nine years for manslaughter can't be deported
kimbers - Memberwell done robdixon, youve nicely summed up the naive, confused and idiotic stance of the rightwing press and the gullibility of those that swalllow that BS
As opposed to the deafening silence of the left wing press who simply chose not to report it? 😛
What about the soldiers who raised a claim because their colleagues were being sent out in ill-equipped 'snatch' landrovers and being blown to shreds?
They'll be limited by this, as its UK only:
"Limit the reach of human rights cases to the UK, so that British Armed forces overseas are not subject to persistent human rights claims that undermine their ability to do their job and keep us safe."
🙂
I like that double-talk of claiming it will allow them to do their jobs, when its going to deny them the right to protest if they're sent out with rifles made of cheese!
Thought the Tories were pro-squaddy? Not by this they aren't.
well done robdixon, youve nicely summed up the naive, confused and idiotic stance of the rightwing press and the gullibility of those that swalllow that BS
Would you like to have another go at that, so you can have a go at playing the ball rather than the man ?
scotroutes - Member
Not applicable in Scotland...
All it takes is an amendment to the scotland act, which they can do any time they like.
So i wouldn't be particularly confident about that.
I think this whole issue symbolises how far to the right UKIP has dragged the political conversation in this country. To even be proposing this is utter madness. God only knows what other barking mad ideas they've got lined up to try and out-UKIP UKIP. Its pretty terrifying the direction the present Tory party is heading in. And I genuinely believe, if this kind of nonsense is anything to go by, a Tory victory would be absolutely catastrophic for this country.
If the labour party worth worth calling an actual opposition, they'd be busy pointing out the insanity of all this right wing reactionary claptrap. Whats that we hear from Ed..... oh... what a surprise.... nothing at all.
Simply, because the best way to protect a citizen from their own government is to have a further level of appeal that goes outwith the state.
Well the United States think a constitution is the best way. The UK is one of a very small group of countries subject to such outside influence.
Would you like to have another go at that, so you can have a go at playing the ball rather than the man ?
well by omission the Express fail to report that hes in prison for the manslaughter, inferring hes at large, which he isnt
and he hasnt been granted indefinite leave to stay in the UK, the judge has agreed that he is able to have his appeal heard by the immigration tribunal, (although the assylum and immigration tribunal was disbanded in 2011 even then the majority of appeals -70%- did not succeed)
and it was replaced by the office of immigration at the first tier court which (apparently) rejects even more appeals
so in all likelihood he will be deported and we can all sleep a bit safer in our beds
Well the United States think a constitution is the best way. The UK is one of a very small group of countries subject to such outside influence.
You can bet the Tories would never bring in a constitution that was for all intents and purposes out of the reach of politicians. So I'd rather keep the ECHR.
Thought the Tories were pro-squaddy? Not by this they aren't.
They never have been, squaddies are usually lower class oiks that shouldn't be complaining.