FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > human rights act 1998 being scrapped

human rights act 1998 being scrapped

Jump to: Newest in thread

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

in a law to protect that protects us is being planned to be be scrapped thoughts swingers

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan over a year ago

here

We're doomed!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

We will all be ok.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It's included in the good Friday agreement

That should make life interesting

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It's a load of bollocks anyway used by twats for pathetic reasons.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

Well what did people expect?

Thatcher in pants is now in total control and has work to do subjugating the masses in favour of his rich friends.

This is just the start...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust_for_laughsCouple over a year ago

Hinckley

To be replaced by a Bill of (slightly less) Rights (than you had before).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entaur_UKMan over a year ago

Cannock

"It's a load of bollocks anyway used by twats for pathetic reasons."

Yes usually those twats are foreign criminals who claim a right to a family life here when they commit a crime. They should be deported, end of!

Also anything that stops prisoners getting the right to vote has to be a good thing in my book.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust_for_laughsCouple over a year ago

Hinckley

"It's a load of bollocks anyway used by twats for pathetic reasons."

The only time you hear about it is when it goes wrong; any idea of the number of people that have had their rights protected by the Act for good reasons over the years?

Just be thankful you never needed it and then keep letting your civil liberties be eroded without complaint until one day you find yourself on the wrong side of a criminal line you hadn't even realised existed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It's a load of bollocks anyway used by twats for pathetic reasons.

The only time you hear about it is when it goes wrong; any idea of the number of people that have had their rights protected by the Act for good reasons over the years?

Ignorance is no defence.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust_for_laughsCouple over a year ago

Hinckley

"It's a load of bollocks anyway used by twats for pathetic reasons.

Yes usually those twats are foreign criminals who claim a right to a family life here when they commit a crime. They should be deported, end of!

Also anything that stops prisoners getting the right to vote has to be a good thing in my book. "

The vote for prisoners issue is a complete red herring.

This week the prison population is 85,590...do you really think that number of people would make any difference to an election result anyway, given that some of them of in YOI's and aren't old enough to vote anyway and 30% of the rest wouldn't bother (if you extrapolate the figures from the general population).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It's a load of bollocks anyway used by twats for pathetic reasons.

The only time you hear about it is when it goes wrong; any idea of the number of people that have had their rights protected by the Act for good reasons over the years?

Ignorance is no defence."

Wow, erm you posted an ignorant comment that its all bollox, ignorant being nit taking into consideration the good it does

This person gives a reasoned explanation of the less ignorant view

So you called him ignorant

Erm, yeah ok,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust_for_laughsCouple over a year ago

Hinckley

"It's a load of bollocks anyway used by twats for pathetic reasons.

The only time you hear about it is when it goes wrong; any idea of the number of people that have had their rights protected by the Act for good reasons over the years?

Ignorance is no defence."

In that case, tell me which Articles of the current Act aren't fit for purpose.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust_for_laughsCouple over a year ago

Hinckley

How about this one, if you enjoy your life on a swinging site so much...

Article 8: Right to respect for private

and family life.

A person has the right to respect for their private and family

life, their home and their correspondence. This right can be

restricted only in specified circumstances.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"How about this one, if you enjoy your life on a swinging site so much...

Article 8: Right to respect for private

and family life.

A person has the right to respect for their private and family

life, their home and their correspondence. This right can be

restricted only in specified circumstances.

You mean without this bollox act our privacy we take for granted would have no repercussions if breached,

Burn it anyway,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust_for_laughsCouple over a year ago

Hinckley

Or, given that you have the right to crticise without recourse, try these...

Article 9: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

A person is free to hold a broad range of views, beliefs and

thoughts, and to follow a religious faith. The right to manifest

those beliefs may be limited only in specified circumstances.

Article 10: Freedom of expression

A person has the right to hold opinions and express their views on their own or in a group. This applies even if those

views are unpopular or disturbing. This right can be restricted only in specified circumstances.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust_for_laughsCouple over a year ago

Hinckley

However, in your own time, feel free to tell me which ones you could manage without.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inaTitzTV/TS over a year ago

Titz Towers, North Notts

I think it would be a huge step backwards.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *izzy RascallMan over a year ago

Cardiff

Im all for it, if its the start of the UK of 'not being so soft' Im all for it.

I dont know the individual parts of this act/law but I think its a step in the right direction.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It's a difficult one and I'll be honest, I haven't fully researched so commenting without the full facts.

But my general view is that PROVIDED the 'new' legislation protects the rights of innocent citizens and provides proper safeguards for our society against those who wish to hurt us, I'm all for it.

It all starts to become grey if or when the new powers are abused.

I guess the mantra of 'if you've got nothing to hide, you should have nothing to worry about' should ring true, but I'm not yet clear on the safeguards in place to protect people going about their normal daily business from abuse?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust_for_laughsCouple over a year ago

Hinckley

I dont know the individual parts of this act/law but I think its a step in the right direction."

Jesus, that's a fucking scary attitude to have!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I just know through my work that those trying to use the Act are usually doing it to get around their own wrongdoings.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The human rights act was a good idea badly abused as usual.

Human rights lawyers have been raking it in hiding behind morality in the same way some that run trusts and charities have been raking it in pretending they actually give a fuck.

We need a bill of rights set in stone like the constitution of the USA but better!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *izzy RascallMan over a year ago

Cardiff

I dont know the individual parts of this act/law but I think its a step in the right direction.

Jesus, that's a fucking scary attitude to have!"

Please call me Jizzy I insist

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

TO be honest the headline is doing away with the human rights act.. but they are not really doing that from what I have read.

More bringing it upto date and tweaking it a bit to stop some of the get out clauses.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *imply_SensualMan over a year ago

warrington

Yes, some 'twats' did use it for situations for which it was probably not intended, but it does provide protection for a lot of people as is said above.

Rather than scrap it and rewrite something, what not consider how the different elements are being applied and close the loop holes that exist to exploit it - for example, insert exceptions into the current legislation?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *verysmileMan over a year ago

Canterbury

The problems that hit the headlines in The Scum or the Daily Heil are not down to the HRA but how it is applied. Perhaps people should focus on that.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It's a load of bollocks anyway used by twats for pathetic reasons.

Yes usually those twats are foreign criminals who claim a right to a family life here when they commit a crime. They should be deported, end of!

Also anything that stops prisoners getting the right to vote has to be a good thing in my book. "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

And Mr Cameron is now telling us that the state should interfere more in peoples lives, even when they are behaving within the law, "who don't agree with British consensus".

Would that be the consensus, as a whole, or just Mr Cameron's friends?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *L RogueMan over a year ago

London

Lib Dems blocked snooping laws in the last term. Now the conservatives are off the leash!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Load o' liberal bollox we can all do without in our everyday life.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *L RogueMan over a year ago

London

"Load o' liberal bollox we can all do without in our everyday life."

Wow...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *1968Man over a year ago

Wokingham

We don't even know what the British Bill of Rights that will replace the Human Rights act will contain so why are so many people getting their knickers in a twist. for me its better to have a British court deciding these things than some muppet in Brussels.

In any case we voted based on what was in each partoes manifesto and the Conservatives won. get over it - besides there are some things that need to change.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abioMan over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

"Load o' liberal bollox we can all do without in our everyday life."

yeah right! I could do without all of these......

Right to life,

right not to be tortured or subjected to inhumane treatment,

right not to be held as a slave,

right to liberty and security of the person,

right to a fair trial,

right not be retrospectively convicted for a crime,

right to a private and family life,

right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,

right to freedom of expression,

right to freedom of assembly and association,

right to marriage,

right to an effective remedy,

right not to be discriminated against,

the right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s property,

and the right to an education.

so.... erm.... no biggies in there then.....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"We don't even know what the British Bill of Rights that will replace the Human Rights act will contain so why are so many people getting their knickers in a twist. for me its better to have a British court deciding these things than some muppet in Brussels.

In any case we voted based on what was in each partoes manifesto and the Conservatives won. get over it - besides there are some things that need to change."

All men are created equal. If this happens, it would seem EU citizens will be more equal than us.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *L RogueMan over a year ago

London

"Load o' liberal bollox we can all do without in our everyday life.

yeah right! I could do without all of these......

Right to life,

right not to be tortured or subjected to inhumane treatment,

right not to be held as a slave,

right to liberty and security of the person,

right to a fair trial,

right not be retrospectively convicted for a crime,

right to a private and family life,

right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,

right to freedom of expression,

right to freedom of assembly and association,

right to marriage,

right to an effective remedy,

right not to be discriminated against,

the right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s property,

and the right to an education.

so.... erm.... no biggies in there then.....

There are people who think the loss of these is a good idea.

I'll say it again: Wow...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *1968Man over a year ago

Wokingham

All men are created equal. If this happens, it would seem EU citizens will be more equal than us. "

If all men were created equal we wouldn't need any human rights act and maybe the British will end up being more equal than the French, Germans, Italians etc. point is we dont know what the new bill will contain.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abioMan over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

"It's a load of bollocks anyway used by twats for pathetic reasons.

Yes usually those twats are foreign criminals who claim a right to a family life here when they commit a crime. They should be deported, end of!

Also anything that stops prisoners getting the right to vote has to be a good thing in my book. "

you meant like Abu Qatada.... he is the poster boy for why britain couldn't have him deported... and to those lovely jordanians....

you do know that he couldn't be deported under UK law don't you.... you know the is where it says "you can't deport to a country where there is a potential death penalty hanging (no pun intended) over you......"

and the bit that said can't be deported in case where evidence gained by torture can't be used against you....

I mean.. thats just not fair!!!!!!

he was deported when the jordanians signed an agreement saying he would not face the death penalty.... and that "torture stuff" wouldn't be used at trial....

guess what.... he was found innocent in a jordanian court.... and then they charged him with some more stuff.... and he was found innocent again, with no case to answer....

who'd have thought that!!!!!!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

liberty will die to thunderous applause...... the people have spoken.... and they are retarded

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

"Load o' liberal bollox we can all do without in our everyday life.

yeah right! I could do without all of these......

Right to life,

right not to be tortured or subjected to inhumane treatment,

right not to be held as a slave,

right to liberty and security of the person,

right to a fair trial,

right not be retrospectively convicted for a crime,

right to a private and family life,

right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,

right to freedom of expression,

right to freedom of assembly and association,

right to marriage,

right to an effective remedy,

right not to be discriminated against,

the right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s property,

and the right to an education.

so.... erm.... no biggies in there then.....

There are people who think the loss of these is a good idea.

I'll say it again: Wow..."

agreed..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abioMan over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

[Removed by poster at 13/05/15 14:44:25]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abioMan over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

" for me its better to have a British court deciding these things than some muppet in Brussels.

you.... have ....no.. idea.....

1) no link between the EU and ECHR....none!!! nada... zilch!... only thing they share is the word "european" in their titles.......

2) European court is in strasbourg france... not belgium (although i am sure that comes back to that rant where you think the EU and the ECHR are linked.....

actually... just for your info... ECHR predates the EU..... and every european country except 1 (belarus) is signed up to it...

3) ECHR was actually incorporated into the uk "human rights act" so that they cases can (and do!!) have those decisions made in UK courts and uk judges... and not that court in ...oh my god... where it is again... oh ya, strasbourg!!!!

and decision is these cases are made at the high courts and the supreme courts...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ovely CummingsWoman over a year ago

Peaky Nipples

" its better to have Brittish court deciding these things than some muppet in Brusssels."

Biggest misconception is that the European bill of human rights has anything to do with the eu, it doesn't. It's in stratsburg and is an entirely separate entity to the eu council in Brussels

Also, since 2000 I think, British courts do decide on human rights issues, meaning that more normal folks get to have their cases heard, before that it could take the average person up to 5 years and a trips to stratsburg to have their case heard

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"Im all for it, if its the start of the UK of 'not being so soft' Im all for it.

I dont know the individual parts of this act/law but I think its a step in the right direction."

Sounds a bit like turkeys voting for Christmas!

From your profile:

Webcams, Toys, Threesomes,

Role Play, Cybersex... Quite Happy to get involved in Pre Sloppies

Wait till some dogbotherer gets into power and decides you are a perverted individual who needs gaoling...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The HRA makes the uk government accountable for its actions. Without it the UK government can do what the fuck it likes to us

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abioMan over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

"liberty will die to thunderous applause...... the people have spoken.... and they are retarded"

okay those last 4 words might be a bit harsh... but the serve amount of ignorance in this thread displayed by a few is quite scary....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *1968Man over a year ago

Wokingham

Thanks for educating me .. so the ECHR is in Strasbourg and not Brussels and has no relation to the EU - great and as i say i appreciate the education. I appreciate it more as they wasn't a single hint of sarcasm used in that education.

The point i was making was the fact that we DO NOT KNOW what the British Bill of Rights that will replace the Human Rights Act will contain .. So its pointless whining about losing rights when maybe , just maybe for us British Citizens those rights may be strengthened (unless of course you have something to hide). But i guess we will see won't we.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *andS66Couple over a year ago

Derby

"It's a load of bollocks anyway used by twats for pathetic reasons.

Yes usually those twats are foreign criminals who claim a right to a family life here when they commit a crime. They should be deported, end of!

Also anything that stops prisoners getting the right to vote has to be a good thing in my book.

The vote for prisoners issue is a complete red herring.

It's a point of principle actually... why should someone who's broken the law have the right to vote? And to say it wouldn't make any difference is crazy..... in Derby, for instance, a conservative got in by 41 votes... so a prison population voting could actually make a difference...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The rights don't apply unless authority respects them.

Sorry to say they went already 4 years ago.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

3 hours and nobody has blamed Cheri Booth. Wow.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

the old "ive got nothing to hide" chestnut...... LOLZ

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *etitesaraTV/TS over a year ago

rochdale

I dont know the individual parts of this act/law but I think its a step in the right direction.

Jesus, that's a fucking scary attitude to have!"

Beggars belief doesn't it?

How easy it is to sleepwalk an ignorant populace into waiving their rights.

These rights are there to protect the individual from the actions of an overmighty State.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust_for_laughsCouple over a year ago

Hinckley

"It's a load of bollocks anyway used by twats for pathetic reasons.

Yes usually those twats are foreign criminals who claim a right to a family life here when they commit a crime. They should be deported, end of!

Also anything that stops prisoners getting the right to vote has to be a good thing in my book.

The vote for prisoners issue is a complete red herring.

Done any of these lately?

1. Speeding

2. Talking on a mobile/texting while driving

3. Dropping litter

4. Illegally downloading music

5. Cycling on pavements

6. Eating or drinking while driving

7. Having sex in a public place

8. Parking partly on a pavement

9. Taking drugs

10. Not wearing a seatbelt

11. Having sex under the age of 16

12. Parking on double yellow lines

13. Cycling with lights after dark

14. Not cleaning up dog poo

15. Smoking in a public place

16. Driving through a red light

17. Not having a TV license

18. Not informing the DVLA of a change of address/name

19. Taking a child out of school for a holiday without the head's permission

20. Carry an offensive weapon

If you did, you broke the law, and by your definition should be denied the right to vote.

Your Conservative in Derby, is there a prison in the same constituency?

I've not seen anyone suggest that ALL prisoners should be given the right to vote (and I myself am currently undecided on the issue) but not all 'law-breakers' are created equally.

And yes, I do realise I'm being trite.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *L RogueMan over a year ago

London

"Thanks for educating me .. so the ECHR is in Strasbourg and not Brussels and has no relation to the EU - great and as i say i appreciate the education. I appreciate it more as they wasn't a single hint of sarcasm used in that education.

It's a lot of maybes at a big cost.

is there going to be a vote on this action in government?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *dwalu2Couple over a year ago

Bristol

The great thing is that Theresa May made herself look like an idiot on the Today programme this morning. She couldn't adequately explain what 'British Values' were, and fell back on the old 'tolerance, freedom of expression, freedom of religion' standby.

IE, the things that are protected in the Human Rights Act.

If you voted for them, you deserve everything that's coming to you. God help the rest of us.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *jrodes338Man over a year ago

wednesfield,Wolverhampton

" its better to have Brittish court deciding these things than some muppet in Brusssels.

Biggest misconception is that the European bill of human rights has anything to do with the eu, it doesn't. It's in stratsburg and is an entirely separate entity to the eu council in Brussels

Cameron should of appointed you home secretary...would of had my vote

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust_for_laughsCouple over a year ago

Hinckley

"The great thing is that Theresa May made herself look like an idiot on the Today programme this morning. She couldn't adequately explain what 'British Values' were, and fell back on the old 'tolerance, freedom of expression, freedom of religion' standby.

IE, the things that are protected in the Human Rights Act.

If you voted for them, you deserve everything that's coming to you. God help the rest of us."

We were discussing this in the car this morning. The 'British values' that were being espoused were values that had transpired from years of development, rather than some mythical moral code from a bygone age!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nnyMan over a year ago

Glasgow

I can't but feel that if we deny human rights to our own citizens we'll deny them to visitors/ tourists to the UK.

That probably means they'll do the same to UK visitors overseas which might be very uncomfortable if you find yourself wrongly accused many miles from home.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

To be fair to anyone getting the two confused: the official seat of the European Parliament is also in Strasbourg.

All MEPs decamp there once a month from Brussels (yes, it's ludicrous and a waste of money).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Its what the government want , its their first disastrous measures to get the uk out of Europe.

In an ever shrinking world we will be come more isolated

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ath_Neil_bifunCouple over a year ago

near cardiff

Fuck me the UK was a right place for human rights abuses pre 1998..

Lol

We live in one of the freest,fairest societies on planet earth for fucks sake.this ain't Libya,Syria,Iraq, russia or north Korea!I suspect this time next election the UK legal system will be as it is now for the vast majority of us..something we hardly ever come into contact with

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I'd like to see what's going to be included in any proposed British Bill of Human Rights. And then, when it contains all the same stuff, just drop this proposal and stick with the original. The ECHR seems like it gets blamed for a lot of frustrations or strange sentencing and other legal decisions but I'm not convinced it really is....a bit like when people blame "Health and Safety" for everything despite the fact no H&S guidance has ever said anything of the sort.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Fuck me the UK was a right place for human rights abuses pre 1998..

Lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entaur_UKMan over a year ago

Cannock

"It's a load of bollocks anyway used by twats for pathetic reasons.

Yes usually those twats are foreign criminals who claim a right to a family life here when they commit a crime. They should be deported, end of!

Also anything that stops prisoners getting the right to vote has to be a good thing in my book.

The vote for prisoners issue is a complete red herring.

Done any of these lately?

1. Speeding

2. Talking on a mobile/texting while driving

3. Dropping litter

4. Illegally downloading music

5. Cycling on pavements

6. Eating or drinking while driving

7. Having sex in a public place

8. Parking partly on a pavement

9. Taking drugs

10. Not wearing a seatbelt

11. Having sex under the age of 16

12. Parking on double yellow lines

13. Cycling with lights after dark

14. Not cleaning up dog poo

15. Smoking in a public place

16. Driving through a red light

17. Not having a TV license

18. Not informing the DVLA of a change of address/name

19. Taking a child out of school for a holiday without the head's permission

20. Carry an offensive weapon

If you did, you broke the law, and by your definition should be denied the right to vote.

Your Conservative in Derby, is there a prison in the same constituency?

I've not seen anyone suggest that ALL prisoners should be given the right to vote (and I myself am currently undecided on the issue) but not all 'law-breakers' are created equally.

And yes, I do realise I'm being trite.

I was caught speeding recently, had a fine and points on licence but no prison sentence. I can still vote because i have not gone to prison. The ECHR has clearly been pushing in recent years to give the right to vote for prisoners (if you want to be trite that means those serving time locked up in jail). You clearly don't get the principle of it do you, people serving time in prison (locked up in a jail cell) should not be allowed to vote under any circumstances, to claim it is a violation of their human rights is quite frankly bollocks.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Im all for it, if its the start of the UK of 'not being so soft' Im all for it.

I dont know the individual parts of this act/law but I think its a step in the right direction."

So you don't know anything about it but are in favor of getting rid of it???

Don't go in to politics if that's your attitude

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entaur_UKMan over a year ago

Cannock

"Load o' liberal bollox we can all do without in our everyday life.

yeah right! I could do without all of these......

Right to life,

right not to be tortured or subjected to inhumane treatment,

right not to be held as a slave,

right to liberty and security of the person,

right to a fair trial,

right not be retrospectively convicted for a crime,

right to a private and family life,

right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,

right to freedom of expression,

right to freedom of assembly and association,

right to marriage,

right to an effective remedy,

right not to be discriminated against,

the right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s property,

and the right to an education.

so.... erm.... no biggies in there then.....

....and whats to say those things will not be included in the new Bill of rights? You are seriously jumping the gun.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

End of the day its legislating common courtesy but without it you could end up being stoned to death for having an opinion that differs from someone else or some made up book of contradictions,

But as said its being updated not scrapped,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entaur_UKMan over a year ago

Cannock

"It's a load of bollocks anyway used by twats for pathetic reasons.

Yes usually those twats are foreign criminals who claim a right to a family life here when they commit a crime. They should be deported, end of!

Also anything that stops prisoners getting the right to vote has to be a good thing in my book.

you meant like Abu Qatada.... he is the poster boy for why britain couldn't have him deported... and to those lovely jordanians....

and the bit that said can't be deported in case where evidence gained by torture can't be used against you....

I mean.. thats just not fair!!!!!!

he was deported when the jordanians signed an agreement saying he would not face the death penalty.... and that "torture stuff" wouldn't be used at trial....

guess what.... he was found innocent in a jordanian court.... and then they charged him with some more stuff.... and he was found innocent again, with no case to answer....

who'd have thought that!!!!!!!

There are plenty of other unsavoury characters and foreign criminals who have commited crimes and been convicted who have then claimed right to family life here so we could'nt deport them, but funny you should pick out the one which seems to be a unique case for your argument. You really should listen to some of Abu Qatadas speeches, and see what type of guy you are defending. But hey if you want to defend an islamic extremist fundamentalist, who is on record as saying he hates Britain and the west, he hates our way of life and everything about us, death to all those who don't believe in his version of Islam, who is an Al-Quaida, and ISIS sympathiser be my guest.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"Fuck me the UK was a right place for human rights abuses pre 1998..

Lol

I am not a Republican supporter, never have been never will be! But tell that to the Catholics (some provos) that were tortured by the British Government in the 70's and 80's. Or to the suspected terrorists that we helped the USA kidnap from all over the world and spirit off to torture camps in places like Libya. Or if you want something a little closer to home how about telling that to all the people who have been paid millions in damages by our police forces for beating up and fitting up innocent British citizens because the police felt it was OK.

But your right, there are worse places in the world so we can sink a long way before you will be complaining I think (unless you find yourself on the wrong side of human rights abuse).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

A civilised country will always have human rights enshrined in law and will be the glue that binds society together.

Some may use the legislation to further futile claims or appeals but to enshrine the right to democratic and free speech has to be the way forward?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ath_Neil_bifunCouple over a year ago

near cardiff

"Fuck me the UK was a right place for human rights abuses pre 1998..

Lol

But your right, there are worse places in the world so we can sink a long way before you will be complaining I think (unless you find yourself on the wrong side of human rights abuse).

Then don't try blowing up pubs with people in em!

Or blowing up shopping /business districts...or kidnapping random people cause they were born on the wrong side of town,and then proceed to murder them

And are you telling me that since the human rights acts that the police in the UK are no longer corrupt?

Lmao....

Take away the human rights act and we are still left with one of the most robust legal systems in the world,that regularly puts the nose of governments out,and a lot of our human rights are already points of law anyway..I'm not remotely worried that the UK is slipping down a dystopian road any time soon

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *andS66Couple over a year ago

Derby

"It's a load of bollocks anyway used by twats for pathetic reasons.

Yes usually those twats are foreign criminals who claim a right to a family life here when they commit a crime. They should be deported, end of!

Also anything that stops prisoners getting the right to vote has to be a good thing in my book.

The vote for prisoners issue is a complete red herring.

Done any of these lately?

1. Speeding

2. Talking on a mobile/texting while driving

3. Dropping litter

4. Illegally downloading music

5. Cycling on pavements

6. Eating or drinking while driving

7. Having sex in a public place

8. Parking partly on a pavement

9. Taking drugs

10. Not wearing a seatbelt

11. Having sex under the age of 16

12. Parking on double yellow lines

13. Cycling with lights after dark

14. Not cleaning up dog poo

15. Smoking in a public place

16. Driving through a red light

17. Not having a TV license

18. Not informing the DVLA of a change of address/name

19. Taking a child out of school for a holiday without the head's permission

20. Carry an offensive weapon

If you did, you broke the law, and by your definition should be denied the right to vote.

Your Conservative in Derby, is there a prison in the same constituency?

I've not seen anyone suggest that ALL prisoners should be given the right to vote (and I myself am currently undecided on the issue) but not all 'law-breakers' are created equally.

And yes, I do realise I'm being trite.

Not being trite... pedantic and facetious maybe, but not trite.

No to all twenty I'm afraid. How boring am I?!

And we were talking about prisoners.... as you well know.

You stated that a prison population of 85,000 would not make a bit of difference... clearly it could, if a prison was in a constituency where there was a small majority.

The EHCR did actually propose that all prisoners be given the right to vote some years ago.

My opinion is that if you get a custodial sentence you should lose the right to vote, in just the same way you should lose the right to pop down the local for a pint.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust_for_laughsCouple over a year ago

Hinckley

"It's a load of bollocks anyway used by twats for pathetic reasons.

Yes usually those twats are foreign criminals who claim a right to a family life here when they commit a crime. They should be deported, end of!

Also anything that stops prisoners getting the right to vote has to be a good thing in my book.

The vote for prisoners issue is a complete red herring.

Done any of these lately?

1. Speeding

2. Talking on a mobile/texting while driving

3. Dropping litter

4. Illegally downloading music

5. Cycling on pavements

6. Eating or drinking while driving

7. Having sex in a public place

8. Parking partly on a pavement

9. Taking drugs

10. Not wearing a seatbelt

11. Having sex under the age of 16

12. Parking on double yellow lines

13. Cycling with lights after dark

14. Not cleaning up dog poo

15. Smoking in a public place

16. Driving through a red light

17. Not having a TV license

18. Not informing the DVLA of a change of address/name

19. Taking a child out of school for a holiday without the head's permission

20. Carry an offensive weapon

If you did, you broke the law, and by your definition should be denied the right to vote.

Your Conservative in Derby, is there a prison in the same constituency?

I've not seen anyone suggest that ALL prisoners should be given the right to vote (and I myself am currently undecided on the issue) but not all 'law-breakers' are created equally.

And yes, I do realise I'm being trite.

I understand the principle perfectly, despite the fact that I'm originally from Cannock and should be as dumb as dogshit, but if no one asks the questions where do we end up?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abioMan over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

My opinion is that if you get a custodial sentence you should lose the right to vote, in just the same way you should lose the right to pop down the local for a pint."

okay... so lets go with that scenario... and lets play a little "devils advocate" with it......

say this person had gone to jail for 7 days.....

the person who had been to jail and come out just before election day.... gets to vote

the people who gets the sentence or been on remand so goes to jail after election day... gets to vote

but the person who is doing the 7 day stretch during election day... they dont!!

so one of the compromise suggestions that was made was that anyone who was due to be release during the time the govt is sitting (the next 5 years) would be allowed to vote...

sounded fair...... shot down

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *anchestercubMan over a year ago

manchester & NI

The Tories have to get rid of the HRA - or their Snoopers Charter won't work.

Cameron - "For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'."

We can't have a HRA if we have no privacy so they're getting rid of it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

My opinion is that if you get a custodial sentence you should lose the right to vote, in just the same way you should lose the right to pop down the local for a pint.

okay... so lets go with that scenario... and lets play a little "devils advocate" with it......

say this person had gone to jail for 7 days.....

the person who had been to jail and come out just before election day.... gets to vote

the people who gets the sentence or been on remand so goes to jail after election day... gets to vote

but the person who is doing the 7 day stretch during election day... they dont!!

so one of the compromise suggestions that was made was that anyone who was due to be release during the time the govt is sitting (the next 5 years) would be allowed to vote...

sounded fair...... shot down"
.

It's why the US locks up 10-15% of it's electoral base, wankers would just vote for the green party and we'd just let them roam in fields

Of course you could argue in the us where most prisons are privatised, locking people up is good business, the government keep giving you customers that the people pay for in taxs chhherching

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *verysmileMan over a year ago

Canterbury

My opinion is that if you get a custodial sentence you should lose the right to vote, in just the same way you should lose the right to pop down the local for a pint.

okay... so lets go with that scenario... and lets play a little "devils advocate" with it......

say this person had gone to jail for 7 days.....

the person who had been to jail and come out just before election day.... gets to vote

the people who gets the sentence or been on remand so goes to jail after election day... gets to vote

but the person who is doing the 7 day stretch during election day... they dont!!

so one of the compromise suggestions that was made was that anyone who was due to be release during the time the govt is sitting (the next 5 years) would be allowed to vote...

sounded fair...... shot down"

Person on remand. .....not convicted. Person released .....conviction spent. Cannit see what you are talking about. ...sorry

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

sounded fair...... shot down.

It's why the US locks up 10-15% of it's electoral base, wankers would just vote for the green party and we'd just let them roam in fields

Of course you could argue in the us where most prisons are privatised, locking people up is good business, the government keep giving you customers that the people pay for in taxs chhherching

In the US they have a 3 strikes and your out law which gives US big business 250000+ slaves!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It's a load of bollocks anyway used by twats for pathetic reasons.

Yes usually those twats are foreign criminals who claim a right to a family life here when they commit a crime. They should be deported, end of!

Also anything that stops prisoners getting the right to vote has to be a good thing in my book. "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

i still cant believe that millions of struggling working class people voted these fuckers back in again..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

What this really means is a shit load more cash for the legal profession as they set about taking the piss in the very same way they have with the previous act.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *at69driveMan over a year ago

Hertford

"Load o' liberal bollox we can all do without in our everyday life.

yeah right! I could do without all of these......

Right to life,

right not to be tortured or subjected to inhumane treatment,

right not to be held as a slave,

right to liberty and security of the person,

right to a fair trial,

right not be retrospectively convicted for a crime,

right to a private and family life,

right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,

right to freedom of expression,

right to freedom of assembly and association,

right to marriage,

right to an effective remedy,

right not to be discriminated against,

the right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s property,

and the right to an education.

so.... erm.... no biggies in there then.....

....and whats to say those things will not be included in the new Bill of rights? You are seriously jumping the gun.

We can have a new Bill of rights, but send a clear message to the ECHR that we will not allow prisoners the right to vote, and we can close loopholes such as foreign criminals claiming the right to a family life here when they commit crimes and are convicted of those crimes."
. And we even had a prisoner citing the Human Rights Act as a reason why he should be allowed to father a child . How selfish can you get and in any event why should tax payers subsidise his children

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rightonsteveMan over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!

I'm quite left wing but I think people who make a decision not to abide by the laws of the land and society give up a certain number of their rights including freedom to vote if they end up in prison.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *mmabluTV/TS over a year ago

upton wirral

Yes scrap it scrap it scrap it,it destroys the rights of decent people

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Yes scrap it scrap it scrap it,it destroys the rights of decent people"

How?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust_for_laughsCouple over a year ago

Hinckley

"Yes scrap it scrap it scrap it,it destroys the rights of decent people"

Pardon?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ig1gaz1Man over a year ago

bradford

interesting thread but you should really understand what rights you are giving up

right to a fair trial

The applicant must have a real opportunity to present his or her case or challenge the case against them. This will require access to an opponent’s submissions, procedural equality and generally requires access to evidence relied on by the other party and an oral hearing.

There must be equality of arms between the parties, so, for example, the defence has the same right to examine witnesses against them as the prosecution has and both parties have the right to legal representation etc.

this one has already been reduced by the removal of legal aid

The Government plans to cut £350 million from the legal aid budget.

Why is legal aid important?

If a person cannot afford legal representation, this can undermine their right to a fair trial, a right which is protected under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act.

right to a private and family life,

respect for private and confidential information, particularly the storing and sharing of such information;

the right not to be subject to unlawful state surveillance;

respect for privacy when one has a reasonable expectation of privacy; and

the right to control the dissemination of information about one’s private life, including photographs taken covertly.

Respect for the home

Right to respect for the home includes a right not to have one’s home life interfered with, including by unlawful surveillance, unlawful entry, arbitrary evictions etc.

Respect for correspondence

Everyone has the right to uninterrupted and uncensored communication with others – a right particularly of relevance in relation to phone-tapping; email surveillance; and the reading of letters.

it also covers stopping business phonecalls at all hrs wanting to sell you stuff as well as cold callers to the door

the law also affects balliffs where they cant call at unsociable hrs or even debt collectors

stops hospitals passing on your medical info to insurance companys or even your doctor passing medical info or even the std clinic

these are all found at liberty human rights

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It's a load of bollocks anyway used by twats for pathetic reasons.

Yes usually those twats are foreign criminals who claim a right to a family life here when they commit a crime. They should be deported, end of!

Also anything that stops prisoners getting the right to vote has to be a good thing in my book. "

How many times have foreign criminals claimed this right for family life from the ECHR in the last 5 years? How many have been successful?

You make it sound like an epidemic but I bet you'll find it very difficult to name the two cases where this actually happened in 2010 and 2011 and you won't have bothered to read about the reasons for the judgments at all.

The fact is that about 15 cases a year go to the ECHR that affect the UK and that's for all parts of the human rights laws. In most cases the ECHR uphold UK law, including those about foreign criminals and family life.

I'm always amazed by the hysterical bollocks spouted about foreign criminals claiming the right to family life in the ECHR as if it was happening hundreds of times a day.

Some people might say that that energy would be much better used getting people with speeding convictions banned from voting?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust_for_laughsCouple over a year ago

Hinckley

"It's a load of bollocks anyway used by twats for pathetic reasons.

Yes usually those twats are foreign criminals who claim a right to a family life here when they commit a crime. They should be deported, end of!

Also anything that stops prisoners getting the right to vote has to be a good thing in my book.

How many times have foreign criminals claimed this right for family life from the ECHR in the last 5 years? How many have been successful?

I'm always amazed by the hysterical bollocks spouted about foreign criminals claiming the right to family life in the ECHR as if it was happening hundreds of times a day.

Some people might say that that energy would be much better used getting people with speeding convictions banned from voting?

You're just another deluded lefty

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust_for_laughsCouple over a year ago

Hinckley

"interesting thread but you should really understand what rights you are giving up

right to a fair trial

this one has already been reduced by the removal of legal aid

The Government plans to cut £350 million from the legal aid budget.

Why is legal aid important?

If a person cannot afford legal representation, this can undermine their right to a fair trial, a right which is protected under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act.

right to a private and family life,

respect for private and confidential information, particularly the storing and sharing of such information;

the right not to be subject to unlawful state surveillance;

respect for privacy when one has a reasonable expectation of privacy; and

the right to control the dissemination of information about one’s private life, including photographs taken covertly.

Respect for the home

Right to respect for the home includes a right not to have one’s home life interfered with, including by unlawful surveillance, unlawful entry, arbitrary evictions etc.

Respect for correspondence

Everyone has the right to uninterrupted and uncensored communication with others – a right particularly of relevance in relation to phone-tapping; email surveillance; and the reading of letters.

it also covers stopping business phonecalls at all hrs wanting to sell you stuff as well as cold callers to the door

the law also affects balliffs where they cant call at unsociable hrs or even debt collectors

stops hospitals passing on your medical info to insurance companys or even your doctor passing medical info or even the std clinic

these are all found at liberty human rights "

I'm still waiting for someone to choose one they'd like to get rid of!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icketysplitsWoman over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"interesting thread but you should really understand what rights you are giving up

right to a fair trial

this one has already been reduced by the removal of legal aid

The Government plans to cut £350 million from the legal aid budget.

Why is legal aid important?

If a person cannot afford legal representation, this can undermine their right to a fair trial, a right which is protected under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act.

right to a private and family life,

respect for private and confidential information, particularly the storing and sharing of such information;

the right not to be subject to unlawful state surveillance;

respect for privacy when one has a reasonable expectation of privacy; and

the right to control the dissemination of information about one’s private life, including photographs taken covertly.

Respect for the home

Right to respect for the home includes a right not to have one’s home life interfered with, including by unlawful surveillance, unlawful entry, arbitrary evictions etc.

Respect for correspondence

Everyone has the right to uninterrupted and uncensored communication with others – a right particularly of relevance in relation to phone-tapping; email surveillance; and the reading of letters.

it also covers stopping business phonecalls at all hrs wanting to sell you stuff as well as cold callers to the door

the law also affects balliffs where they cant call at unsociable hrs or even debt collectors

stops hospitals passing on your medical info to insurance companys or even your doctor passing medical info or even the std clinic

these are all found at liberty human rights

I'm still waiting for someone to choose one they'd like to get rid of!"

My only comment is that no one can. Just as equality has become a dirty word in the British lexicon so have human rights. People take them for granted until the Human Rights Act is used to protect their rights.

The updating may follow that set out by Grayling last year or it may not under Gove. I'm not holding my breath that we will see an improvement and I fear an erosion.

The real red herrings are people claiming it's the Human Rights Act protecting ne'er do wells at the expense of all us good law abiding decent folk.

The combination of erosions on free speech (we've got to be seen to be tough on those radicals and, by the way, it's a really handy angle to use to push through all sorts of things that allow us to control the population) and Human Rights will happen and we won't be able to judge what was good until it gone.

I'm now going to do my best to ignore this thread as the ignorance of our Human Rights displayed on this thread saddens and angers me.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *MaleMan over a year ago

It doesnt need to be scrapped. All thats needed is an ammendemnt to spell out that 'if someone plans or takes actions that deny or violate other persons their human rights, that someone will not be able to stand behind their own human rights'.

For some reason its not being amended but scrapped and I believe something brought in to replace it. To me that means something will be sneaked in alongside it that would stand out like a sore thumb if it was solely part of an amendment.

The end is nigh

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Or, given that you have the right to crticise without recourse, try these...

Article 9: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

A person is free to hold a broad range of views, beliefs and

thoughts, and to follow a religious faith. The right to manifest

those beliefs may be limited only in specified circumstances.

Article 10: Freedom of expression

A person has the right to hold opinions and express their views on their own or in a group. This applies even if those

views are unpopular or disturbing. This right can be restricted only in specified circumstances."

Which are already in British law...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It doesnt need to be scrapped. All thats needed is an ammendemnt to spell out that 'if someone plans or takes actions that deny or violate other persons their human rights, that someone will not be able to stand behind their own human rights'.

The end is nigh

Because we can't amend it its dependant on getting a bunch of random European officials to agree to amend it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *anchestercubMan over a year ago

manchester & NI

I'm so sick of people feeling everything should work for them 100% of the time.

EU - will not always work to the benefit of the UK.

Council of Europe - will not always work to the benefit of the UK.

Human rights - will not always work to the benefit of the UK.

You cannot always get what you want all of the time.

You have to accept the good and the bad if you want to work with people/organisations otherwise accept that you're a sociopath and go isolationist like North Korea.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ophieslutTV/TS over a year ago

Central

Dreadful mistake to try to scrap it. We wouldn't scap other laws because a handful of people misuse their privilege.

Ideological driven changes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Some of the abuses of it have been appalling. Presumably this can only be tackled by effectively rewriting it but I'd rather that was done at a European level than under this Govt.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ig1gaz1Man over a year ago

bradford

"I'm so sick of people feeling everything should work for them 100% of the time.

EU - will not always work to the benefit of the UK.

Council of Europe - will not always work to the benefit of the UK.

Human rights - will not always work to the benefit of the UK.

You cannot always get what you want all of the time.

You have to accept the good and the bad if you want to work with people/organisations otherwise accept that you're a sociopath and go isolationist like North Korea.

the main fact is its our laws that is the eu laws it was our gift to the other eu countries after the 2nd world war

"The Human Rights Act has cost the British tax payer millions of pounds and has been a goldmine for lawyers"

One of the main reasons for the Act was the cost and delay caused by the fact that people could only enforce their human rights by taking cases to a court in Strasbourg. People’s rights can now be protected by British courts, which is far more efficient and cost-effective. But the Human Rights Act is not just about lawyers and courts. It has helped thousands of people protect their human rights without the need for costly court cases. Local authorities have reviewed their policies to make sure they treat the vulnerable with dignity and respect and users of a wide range of public services have used the Act as a tool to argue for better and fairer services.

"The HRA has been imposed on us by the EU"

The HRA was independently passed by the UK Parliament in 1998. It incorporates the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Convention was adopted by the Council of Europe in 1950 – a body set up after the Second World War to promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Europe. This body is completely separate to the EU. The UK played a major role in the negotiations and drafting of the Convention which it voluntarily adopted in 1951.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What this really means is a shit load more cash for the legal profession as they set about taking the piss in the very same way they have with the previous act."
.

I can't concentrate on anything you while

A I'm pissed

B your arse is distracting me

C there calling last orders

D what was the questing again

E it's my round

D mmmmmm bums

E your arse looks good

F what was the question

G mmmm bums

T your arse looks mighty fine

P what do you mean last orders have gone

Q you capitalist twat, I'm making on roads with a bum

Y what do you mean I'm the bum

I give up nobody likes me when I'm sober nobody likes me when I'm d*unk

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *anchestercubMan over a year ago

manchester & NI

"I'm so sick of people feeling everything should work for them 100% of the time.

EU - will not always work to the benefit of the UK.

Council of Europe - will not always work to the benefit of the UK.

Human rights - will not always work to the benefit of the UK.

You cannot always get what you want all of the time.

You have to accept the good and the bad if you want to work with people/organisations otherwise accept that you're a sociopath and go isolationist like North Korea.

the main fact is its our laws that is the eu laws it was our gift to the other eu countries after the 2nd world war

"The Human Rights Act has cost the British tax payer millions of pounds and has been a goldmine for lawyers"

"The HRA has been imposed on us by the EU"

I know that, that's why I listed it separately. My point was that there are a lot of things people seem unhappy with at the minute but that nothing can go your way 100% of the time, unless you want to constantly move the goal posts to suit your own agenda.

I wish the government would just admit that human rights as they stand are an inconvenience to them, so they seek to change the nature of rights so that they can get more satisfactory outcomes when it comes to prosecutions.

The purpose of human rights is that they are fundamental to everyone. No matter the status of the person.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oxesMan over a year ago

Southend, Essex

"The human rights act was a good idea badly abused as usual.

Human rights lawyers have been raking it in hiding behind morality in the same way some that run trusts and charities have been raking it in pretending they actually give a fuck.

We need a bill of rights set in stone like the constiotution of the USA but better!"

We already have a bill of rights it replaced the magna carta.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *at69driveMan over a year ago

Hertford

"It's a load of bollocks anyway used by twats for pathetic reasons.

Yes usually those twats are foreign criminals who claim a right to a family life here when they commit a crime. They should be deported, end of!

Also anything that stops prisoners getting the right to vote has to be a good thing in my book.

How many times have foreign criminals claimed this right for family life from the ECHR in the last 5 years? How many have been successful?

I'm always amazed by the hysterical bollocks spouted about foreign criminals claiming the right to family life in the ECHR as if it was happening hundreds of times a day.

Some people might say that that energy would be much better used getting people with speeding convictions banned from voting?

"
. I think we don't want foreign criminals in the UK anyway , and why should we be bothered about their human rights . ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I dont know the individual parts of this act/law but I think its a step in the right direction.

Jesus, that's a fucking scary attitude to have!"

I agree. Admitting you don't know what's in the act yet supporting its removal is quite tragic.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

My opinion is that if you get a custodial sentence you should lose the right to vote, in just the same way you should lose the right to pop down the local for a pint.

okay... so lets go with that scenario... and lets play a little "devils advocate" with it......

say this person had gone to jail for 7 days.....

the person who had been to jail and come out just before election day.... gets to vote

the people who gets the sentence or been on remand so goes to jail after election day... gets to vote

but the person who is doing the 7 day stretch during election day... they dont!!

so one of the compromise suggestions that was made was that anyone who was due to be release during the time the govt is sitting (the next 5 years) would be allowed to vote...

sounded fair...... shot down

Person on remand. .....not convicted. Person released .....conviction spent. Cannit see what you are talking about. ...sorry"
person released... conviction not spent! A convition is spent after a qualifying period of time irrelevant of prison sentence.

Dependant on what they do to replace it, it could be a very good thing. More protection from gov, police, employers and even local authorities would be a good thing, sadly this will not be the case, what will happen is all government institutions will be given more power to abuse and our rights will be deminished as your right to silence has already been taken away, they will take more and more. As for the 'if you have nothing to hide' chestnut, don't worry that will not help one jot! As the families of the 96 fans who died watching their beloved liverpool only to have tbeir memories tarnished by police lies and cover ups or to stephen Lawrence's family who were fed lies, spied upon and villified by the met... yes I am sure they will agree that the system is fair and the police are honest. We shall never be given more rights by this, what we dohave will certainly be eroded though.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *B9 QueenWoman over a year ago

Over the rainbow, under the bridge

"liberty will die to thunderous applause...... the people have spoken.... and they are retarded"

No surprise there. After all, they voted the tories back in.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *B9 QueenWoman over a year ago

Over the rainbow, under the bridge

Quote from Cameron just yesterday:

For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'.

So even if you are not breaking the law they can still come after you in Cameron's Britain.

Still think the old 'if you've got nothing to hide' excuse is going to work?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The USA are slowly changing the US peoples right.

Has any one on the forum watched zeitgeist are Strom cloud gathering ..it's only a 1/3 of what they is right we are in deep shut.

This may have went off topic a little. But I feel no one has rights anymore.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It's a load of bollocks anyway used by twats for pathetic reasons.

Yes usually those twats are foreign criminals who claim a right to a family life here when they commit a crime. They should be deported, end of!

Also anything that stops prisoners getting the right to vote has to be a good thing in my book.

How many times have foreign criminals claimed this right for family life from the ECHR in the last 5 years? How many have been successful?

I'm always amazed by the hysterical bollocks spouted about foreign criminals claiming the right to family life in the ECHR as if it was happening hundreds of times a day.

Some people might say that that energy would be much better used getting people with speeding convictions banned from voting?

. I think we don't want foreign criminals in the UK anyway , and why should we be bothered about their human rights . ? "

Because they are humans. Just like you only obviously not as perfect.

Human rights were a focus after world war 2 because what happened in Germany showed how easy it is for governments to abuse the rights of people - Jews, non-white people, criminals, political and religious opponents, Romanies, Poles, inferior foreigners.

Which group do you want removed from protection of the law next? What do you want to do when they get to victimising your group?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"in a law to protect that protects us is being planned to be be scrapped thoughts swingers"

we should be animals and have animal rights !!!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"liberty will die to thunderous applause...... the people have spoken.... and they are retarded

No surprise there. After all, they voted the tories back in. "

We're using retarded as an acceptable insult on here now? Really?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *izzy RascallMan over a year ago

Cardiff

I dont know the individual parts of this act/law but I think its a step in the right direction.

Jesus, that's a fucking scary attitude to have!

I agree. Admitting you don't know what's in the act yet supporting its removal is quite tragic."

I couldnt give a fuck

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I couldnt give a fuck

You may be wasting your time on this site then

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lutmeup500Woman over a year ago

London

whats in the act

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *izzy RascallMan over a year ago

Cardiff

I couldnt give a fuck

You may be wasting your time on this site then"

This site is a great time waster

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"in a law to protect that protects us is being planned to be be scrapped thoughts swingers"

Better diction? I assume you mean the Human Rights Act protects us swingers and the triumphant tories want to scrap it. One law that lets the toffs abuse children (allegations against Lord J) but not us plebs...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I couldnt give a fuck

You may be wasting your time on this site then

This site is a great time waster"

it is if you don't give fucks

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ophieslutTV/TS over a year ago

Central

Scrapping the Human Rights Act, which cost millions to establish, is wrong on so many levels.

Cameron hadn't considered the battle he will face from Scotland, Wales etc. Dumb.

If we're in need of austerity, then why are we going to waste so much money on scrapping this and paying huge amounts to rewrite some new law to replace it!

Some simple amendments to current law, to keep the right wing swivel eyed media readers happy, is all that's needed to prevent the tiny abuse/misuse that could happen.

I think it's probably posturing to prove a point to Europe that we might leave.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *L RogueMan over a year ago

London

"I'm still waiting for someone to choose one they'd like to get rid of!

The updating may follow that set out by Grayling last year or it may not under Gove. I'm not holding my breath that we will see an improvement and I fear an erosion.

The real red herrings are people claiming it's the Human Rights Act protecting ne'er do wells at the expense of all us good law abiding decent folk.

I'm now going to do my best to ignore this thread as the ignorance of our Human Rights displayed on this thread saddens and angers me.

What people forget or don't know is that the initial move to do this was blocked by the Lib Dems. So, why is it a good idea and what needs to go? Please have a look at the list earlier in this thread.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *anchestercubMan over a year ago

manchester & NI

"liberty will die to thunderous applause...... "

Stop ripping off Star Wars

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

You vote for fascists...

You get fascist laws...

We have another 5 years of this to come including forcing social housing trusts to sell off their housing stock and more to be announced!

Bet that in 12 months time Ed will be looking real good...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entaur_UKMan over a year ago

Cannock

"It's a load of bollocks anyway used by twats for pathetic reasons.

Yes usually those twats are foreign criminals who claim a right to a family life here when they commit a crime. They should be deported, end of!

Also anything that stops prisoners getting the right to vote has to be a good thing in my book.

How many times have foreign criminals claimed this right for family life from the ECHR in the last 5 years? How many have been successful?

I'm always amazed by the hysterical bollocks spouted about foreign criminals claiming the right to family life in the ECHR as if it was happening hundreds of times a day.

Some people might say that that energy would be much better used getting people with speeding convictions banned from voting?

It really does'nt matter how many cases of it happening, 1 case a year is 1 too many for my liking. It is a loophole which criminals exploit and it needs closing. I'm also amazed by the hysterical bollocks spouted by those on the left, as demonstrated on this thread, as if we are suddenly going to change overnight into a totalitarian state on the same level as Saudi arabia or North Korea by getting rid of this act, it really is laughable.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icketysplitsWoman over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"It's a load of bollocks anyway used by twats for pathetic reasons.

Yes usually those twats are foreign criminals who claim a right to a family life here when they commit a crime. They should be deported, end of!

Also anything that stops prisoners getting the right to vote has to be a good thing in my book.

How many times have foreign criminals claimed this right for family life from the ECHR in the last 5 years? How many have been successful?

I'm always amazed by the hysterical bollocks spouted about foreign criminals claiming the right to family life in the ECHR as if it was happening hundreds of times a day.

Some people might say that that energy would be much better used getting people with speeding convictions banned from voting?

What is laughable is an over-exaggerations that ANYONE opposing eroding our Human Rights in this country has suggested that we will descend overnight into a totalitarian state on the same level as Saudi Arabia or North Korea. Only one person has suggested such a thing, even if in the negative.

Stop attributing sentiments to those that have a different view to you that they have not expressed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The human rights act should be scrapped because some unscrupulous people are abusing it.

Another thing Tony Blair did to destroy this country.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entaur_UKMan over a year ago

Cannock

"It's a load of bollocks anyway used by twats for pathetic reasons.

Yes usually those twats are foreign criminals who claim a right to a family life here when they commit a crime. They should be deported, end of!

Also anything that stops prisoners getting the right to vote has to be a good thing in my book.

How many times have foreign criminals claimed this right for family life from the ECHR in the last 5 years? How many have been successful?

I'm always amazed by the hysterical bollocks spouted about foreign criminals claiming the right to family life in the ECHR as if it was happening hundreds of times a day.

Some people might say that that energy would be much better used getting people with speeding convictions banned from voting?

Stop attributing sentiments to those that have a different view to you that they have not expressed.

.....and no one suggested foreign criminals were claiming right to family life hundreds of times a day, which was suggested in the post i quoted, but funny how you never quoted them to put them straight on the matter?

So maybe they should stop attributing sentiments to those that have a different view to them that they have not expressed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"i still cant believe that millions of struggling working class people voted these fuckers back in again..

It's easy!

Common sense prevailed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icketysplitsWoman over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"It's a load of bollocks anyway used by twats for pathetic reasons.

Yes usually those twats are foreign criminals who claim a right to a family life here when they commit a crime. They should be deported, end of!

Also anything that stops prisoners getting the right to vote has to be a good thing in my book.

How many times have foreign criminals claimed this right for family life from the ECHR in the last 5 years? How many have been successful?

I'm always amazed by the hysterical bollocks spouted about foreign criminals claiming the right to family life in the ECHR as if it was happening hundreds of times a day.

Some people might say that that energy would be much better used getting people with speeding convictions banned from voting?

Stop attributing sentiments to those that have a different view to you that they have not expressed.

So maybe they should stop attributing sentiments to those that have a different view to them that they have not expressed. "

I agree.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *andS66Couple over a year ago

Derby

"It's a load of bollocks anyway used by twats for pathetic reasons.

Yes usually those twats are foreign criminals who claim a right to a family life here when they commit a crime. They should be deported, end of!

Also anything that stops prisoners getting the right to vote has to be a good thing in my book.

How many times have foreign criminals claimed this right for family life from the ECHR in the last 5 years? How many have been successful?

I'm always amazed by the hysterical bollocks spouted about foreign criminals claiming the right to family life in the ECHR as if it was happening hundreds of times a day.

Some people might say that that energy would be much better used getting people with speeding convictions banned from voting?

In 2013 and 2014 a total of 476 foreign nationals, all convicted, were successful in their appeals against deportation under article 8 alone - a right to a family life. These criminals included many violent criminals, including assault, mugging, rape and murder. A little more than the 15 a year you claim.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It's a load of bollocks anyway used by twats for pathetic reasons.

Yes usually those twats are foreign criminals who claim a right to a family life here when they commit a crime. They should be deported, end of!

Also anything that stops prisoners getting the right to vote has to be a good thing in my book.

How many times have foreign criminals claimed this right for family life from the ECHR in the last 5 years? How many have been successful?

I'm always amazed by the hysterical bollocks spouted about foreign criminals claiming the right to family life in the ECHR as if it was happening hundreds of times a day.

Some people might say that that energy would be much better used getting people with speeding convictions banned from voting?

Nope - I was perfectly clear that I was referring to cases going to the ECHR and my figures were based on a parliamentary report of all cases going there between 1975 and 2015. You can find that on google easily (I'll help - try keywords "UK Cases at the European Court of Human Rights since 1975")

I've no idea where you get the numbers you claim for 2013 and 2014 since the latest stuff online from the government seems to be up to 2013. That says that 115 appeals were allowed on all human rights grounds in 2013 i.e. all the Articles not just number 8. Those figures are for appeals allowed by the UK courts and immigration tribunals applying existing UK laws and immigration rules.

I trust the judgment of the British judges and immigration officials on each of these cases because they at least look at the facts of each case before making a judgement. That's much better than uninformed repetition of what I guess are daily mail headlines without any justification or care for the facts.

Personally I don't like the fact that serious foreign criminals get to stay in this country. The UK human rights act is about making sure that when those decisions are made that a proper judicial process is followed - that's what humanity and civilised behaviour would expect, not a knee jerk 'expel all the nasty foreigners' approach.