Turn on thread page Beta

So the tories are taking away the human rights act? watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Munrot07)
    Yes they want to get rid of it but they want to replace it with the British Bill of Rights. The question is why? There is nothing bad, evil or stupid on the humans right act so there is no reason to change it. Answer: So that privacy becomes less of a right so they can continue with their laws to invade our privacy (such as they are doing with the "snoopers charter").
    Change and improvement is integral to progress....

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by keileymclachlan)
    EU law is a part of our constitution, yes, but if we leave the EU, why would we still have their law as a part of it? Thats kinda the point of leaving to get rid of the power they have over us
    The European Court of Human Rights and the European Union are completely independent of eachother
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Don't we all remember the days before 1998 when people were regularly executed by guillotine by Vigilantes? Where witchcraft was punished with a good flogging and being gay meant imprisonment in the Church until you confess your sins? Where freedom of speech was limited to 'I don't like red' and you had no right to your body?

    Thank God the Human Rights Act was established in 1998! The world was horrible before then! I honestly felt like an animal before 1998, until we were finally distinguished as a species!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by small_circles)
    Change and improvement is integral to progress....

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    There is no need to change the human rights act...it is perfectly good as it is. And who said it was an improvement?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anonlad)
    OP: just out of interest why do you think replacing the human rights act with a new system (a UK bill of rights I believe?) is 'moronic'?
    The Tories are clearly just trying to see what they can get away with.

    WAKE UP BRITAIN.

    Before it is too late.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ngb9320)
    Oh really.
    Please do some research and see what they ate replacing it with.
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...-full-document
    Please read up on things and find out the facts.
    They are wanting to replace it with a bill of rights.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by keileymclachlan)
    EU law is a part of our constitution, yes, but if we leave the EU, why would we still have their law as a part of it? Thats kinda the point of leaving to get rid of the power they have over us
    Yes but the Human Rights Act isn't EU Law, it's domestic British Law! That's what I'm saying to you.

    They just stuck 'British Bill of Rights' into the name to delude people into thinking we somehow had a load of foreign stuff before.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    I interpret this policy as simply pandering to the Conservative supporters who have UKIP sympathies. By making our own charter of human rights/Bill of Rights we take power away from Brussels. In practice I expect that nothing will change and that the resulting document will have a near identical wording to the UNDHR and the EUCHR. I'm not exactly the greatest Conservative supporter out there, but until the proposed Bill of Rights has been released any talk of "scrapping human rights" to criticise the Tories is ignorant at best and dishonest at worst.

    Yes our new government is not popular among my peers but more people voted for this than any other party by a pretty considerable margin so I saw we give them a chance and see what they actually do before making judgement.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not saying I agree that it should be scrapped, I actually strongly disagree, HOWEVER we don't actually follow everything in the ECHR. A hot topic a few months ago was about giving prisoners the vote. We should at least follow something we are signed up to, or try to reform it
    (but I don't think we should have our own Bill of Rights because of it's potential to be abused)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by seaholme)
    Yes but the Human Rights Act isn't EU Law, it's domestic British Law! That's what I'm saying to you.

    They just stuck 'British Bill of Rights' into the name to delude people into thinking we somehow had a load of foreign stuff before.
    The HRA 1998 put the European Convention of Human Rights into UK law and allows us to take breaches of the convention to UK courts instead of just the European Court of Human Rights
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    The European Court of Human Rights and the European Union are completely independent of eachother
    In my understanding, you must have the ECHR to be a member of the EU? (something I was told, but not certain)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by seaholme)
    Yes but the Human Rights Act isn't EU Law, it's domestic British Law! That's what I'm saying to you.

    They just stuck 'British Bill of Rights' into the name to delude people into thinking we somehow had a load of foreign stuff before.
    no

    in the event of a breach your case if appealed would go to the european court of human rights, invariably

    this new bill of rights aims to curtail the foreign interference in UK laws
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ngb9320)
    The Tories are clearly just trying to see what they can get away with.

    WAKE UP BRITAIN.

    Before it is too late.
    This ^
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by keileymclachlan)
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...-full-document
    Please read up on things and find out the facts.
    They are wanting to replace it with a bill of rights.
    I have read up in it.

    Do you even know what the bor implies?

    Do some research if you want to try and have a debate child.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Such a hoo-ha over nothing. As if the UK had less human rights before the EU human rights act. It's only because of the UK that Europe has any human rights at all!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ngb9320)
    I have read up in it.

    Do you even know what the bor implies?

    Do some research if you want to try and have a debate child.
    Yes, I do, and I have researched it thank you (Y)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by keileymclachlan)
    Yes, I do, and I have researched it thank you (Y)
    Then am sorry to say but you stupid.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    Such a hoo-ha over nothing. As if the UK had less human rights before the EU human rights act. It's only because of the UK that Europe has any human rights at all!
    Omg please educate yourself.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ngb9320)
    Omg please educate yourself.
    You can do better than that, come on.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SotonianOne)
    no

    in the event of a breach your case if appealed would go to the european court of human rights, invariably

    this new bill of rights aims to curtail the foreign interference in UK laws
    I'm not trying to fob you off with anything and I always hate it when people give me links to read, but you should read this article (incidentally written by an ex human rights lawyer) as it explains it much more clearly than I probably can...
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...l-myth-busting

    The relevant quote from that article being-

    That only leaves Gove with the shallow argument that our courts are shackled because they are bound to follow the decisions of the European court of human rights. But that argument runs into two fundamental problems. First, the HRA only obliges our courts to “take into account” judgments of the European court; they are not bound by them. Second, it is not the HRA that obliges the UK to respond to the judgments of the European court. It is Article 46(1) of the ECHR itself.

    Article 46 states that: “The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” The UK signed up to that international obligation when it signed the ECHR in the 1950s. Repealing the HRA would have no effect whatsoever on the UK’s obligations under Article 46. The only way for the Tories to achieve what they want is for the UK to pull out of the ECHR and, as a consequence, out of the Council of Europe.
 
 
 

5,471

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.