Human Rights Act

  morddwyd 08:12 07 Oct 2009

The Tories have pledged to abolish the Human Rights Act (I doubt if they can under EU law).

click here

If nothing else it will certainly polarise opinion on this forum!

  Quickbeam 08:29 07 Oct 2009

Free and law abiding members of society don't need such a thing, we're free to carry on our own business as we don't harm anyone.

Criminals don't need it either. Society punishes them with withdrawal of various freedoms.

I'm not polarised.

  Quickbeam 08:32 07 Oct 2009

It does however need a vicious reform from someone with a minimum of common sense:)

  wiz-king 09:56 07 Oct 2009

It needs to be change to 'The Humans Rights Act' to reflect the rights of the general population and not the individual.

  tein 11:51 07 Oct 2009

The bill needs kicking out! its a mockery of todays society!" too many times have we had serious crime lords walk free! there sentanced/put in prison! then released either early or immediately!

i find it hard to see why people support it when the negatives outweight the posatives!!

  ventanas 12:00 07 Oct 2009

The sooner the better. It's a complete waste of space.

  Forum Editor 14:27 07 Oct 2009

about peoples' perception of the scope of the act being based on the extreme cases we see in the media is right on the money.

Repealing the Act in its entirety would be a bad move, and it's not what the Conservative government would do - at least not in effect.The act would be replaced with a similar piece of legislation, and that would still involve the European Convention on Human Rights - we can't legislate that out of existence.

  lofty29 15:12 07 Oct 2009

the biggest problem with the humans rights act, and the same with most other legislation, is that whilst the principle was very noble, the laws are drafted in such a way that lawyers manage to find ways to drive a coach and horses through them to achieve ends which they were never supposed to be used for, and judges can use their own interpretation on those laws. Thus the laws come into disrepute.

  Forum Editor 15:14 07 Oct 2009

on those laws"

To be honest, that's how it works. Legislation is drafted by civil servants, debated by parliament, and enacted by the Queen. It's then up to the judiciary to refine the law in the courts - precedents are set, and as time passes the law is tweaked and fine-tuned until it works pretty well.

It's very rare for a piece of legislation to work perfectly, straight out of the box, so to speak.

  JanetO 15:25 07 Oct 2009

...It's very rare for a piece of legislation to work perfectly, straight out of the box, so to speak...

The HR Act has been going for 11 years now, and pretty much everyone, except for the criminals, think it contains elements of stupidity. We even had a case yesterday of a little old lady in trouble for prodding a moronic thug.

This is the type of incident which gives the Act a bad name and if those that conceived it in the first place had a modicum of sense they'd have foreseen it's potential abuse. Even Jack Straw admitted it wasn't administered how it should be.

Let's hope the Tories have more brain cells than the present lot.

  spuds 16:16 07 Oct 2009

Try talking about Human Rights in some quarters, and the response may well be one of who or what you are.

On a personal note. I was in dispute with our local council, and Article 8 clearly states 'Right to respect for private and family life' and Article 1 of Protocol 1 'Protection of property'. In the case of the latter, it clearly states ' You have the right to the peaceful enjoyment of your possessions. Public authorities cannot usually interfere with things you own or the way you use them except in specified limited circumstances'.

Diverting a watercourse from council property to my property, so causing extensive flooding over a long duration, didn't seem to interest the local council as to who had human rights, and what Article 1 of Protocol 1 stated. What did apparent, was the attitude of "take us to court, we have the money to defend ourselves". I often wonder, if the problem had gone to court, what would have been the action of the deciding judge!.

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

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 review

See mcbess's iconic style animated for Mercedes-Benz

iPhone X news: Release date, price, new features & specs

Black Friday 2017 : date, sites participants & bonnes affaires