Backed off and saw sense

  Ungus 09:52 27 May 2015

Not one to praise a conservative government but i see from the Queens speech that repealing the Human Rights act is missing and they have said it needs more consultation [Political speak for dont want to get into this fight]. I think they have now realised that there own back bench was uneasy about this and reminded them that it was a devolved matter and getting into a fight with Edinburgh and others was not a clever idea as they would lose. Perhaps there is some brains in their party after all, what else are the going to drop from their manifesto that might cause needless strife for the constituent parts of these islands.

  OTT_B 10:35 27 May 2015

I'd be interested to know when the decision was made to remove it from the Queen's Speech. It's interesting that the information has been made available now, only just after Cameron met with Junker.

Agree that the 'consultation' is political speak for "can't get this past in the Commons, and even if we could, it wouldn't make it through the Lords". Not sure if it's related to Scotland though.....

  Belatucadrus 20:06 27 May 2015

I have often wondered if the problem lies with our own judiciary rather than the human rights act. France, a modern European nation and signatory to the same act apparently has no problem promptly deporting undesirables rapidly. It seems only in the UK do we have such slavish devotion to the small print that it becomes an immovable obstacle to common sense.

Only in the UK do we have to protect extremist terrorists whose avowed intent is to create a caliphate over the bodies of UK civilians, from the Islamic authorities in their homelands because they might be nasty to them.

  Quickbeam 07:53 28 May 2015

Some of the politicians that are against any changes on human rights act would have us believe that we're about to scrap them entirely and reintroduce concentration camps, torture and hard labour in prisons.

As I understand it, in the simplest terms, we are really just stripping away the last layer of appeal in Europe that so often contradicts our own national interests. The proposed British Bill of Rights, will largely be the same with a different name, with the final appeal remaining within the UK. The only people that don't want it are lawyers that make a lot of money by taking these hugely expensive cases to Europe, and the bleating minnies that just can't accept any final decision from anywhere if it's not the one that suits them.

It's one of the things that could be included in the EU re-negotiations.

  Quickbeam 08:39 28 May 2015


Yes, it's because his majority isn't enough to take it anywhere. Better the do it if there's a realistic chance of being successful at some future point.

But as I said, it could be addressed within the EU re-negotiation talks.

  Ungus 09:19 28 May 2015

The human rights bill does throw up some strange decisions at times but so does the Scottish legal system and i presume the English system does the same. But because a decision is sometimes baffling to us does not mean that you just withdraw from legal procedures. The human rights act is universal a so called British act would probably mean that what England thinks and wants is correct and take no account of what people think in Ireland, Wales or Scotland. This is not a criticism of England its just that as they have the largest population they tend to forget that there are 3 other countries in the union who may have different social and cultural practices and ideas of what is fair and just and perhaps are happy with the current human rights act. It does not really matter now as i think it will be referred to now and again but quietly dropped as it is devolved matter and any repeal would be extremely difficult to negotiate as it flies in the face of the Scotland Act as agreed by both Edinburgh and Westminster and why pick a fight you cant win, added to the lords being full of Libs and Labour peers who would keep sending it back to the commons.

  wee eddie 17:43 28 May 2015

He's got 5 years. Long enough for the SNP to splinter. It's a fair ragbag of disparate views at the moment and although they have 56 Seats it does not mean that they will all be pulling in the same direction, a few years down the line

  bumpkin 18:37 28 May 2015

You raise an interesting point eddie.

  wee eddie 21:33 28 May 2015

Early days

  wee eddie 23:49 28 May 2015

Hang on, it wasn't a sweeping statement. It was a all encompassing statement.

Unfortunately I think that it is you, the trusting followers, who are going to be let down in the long term, as SNP MPs find that that large salary does not go very far in London and there are many siren voices around Westminster who are just waiting to lead them astray. Nothing illegal, you understand, but Chairing a Committee comes with a none too small stipend and a rather larger view of the wide world.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Galaxy Note 8 vs iPhone X

This is what design agencies will look like in 2032

How to update iOS on iPhone or iPad

WhatsApp : comment lire vos messages sans que l’expéditeur le sache