Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Human Rights Act to be scrapped... Watch

    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    This news will only cause excitement amongst the stupid.

    The rational and informed amongst us will know that the Human Rights Act 1998 is not what the right wing press make it out to be. As someone said above, the only thing the HRA did was to allow 43 year old convention rights to be litigated in British courts.

    It does make me chuckle to hear people scream and shout about the HRA.
    One of the particularly idiotic things in her miserably nasty speech today was when she said words to the effect that "our marvellous Supreme Court is being regarded as subsidiary by the nasty ECHR", as if our SC would be in violent disagreement with them - when only a couple of days ago, this was rubbished by Lord Neuberger!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    As far as I can understand from a cursory reading of that lengthy document, the Bridgend householders were arguing against a technicality in a piece of legislation that denied them compensation due to poorly drafted wording in the original legislation that allowed the developers to create a contrived postion to avoid having to pay under the existing legislation.

    After analysing their case, the appeal court agreed that the legislation should be re-written to take those circumstances into account.

    In no way does scrapping and redrafting the existing human rights legislation exclude the possibility that similar provisions for protecting people's possessions and their enjoyment of the same be introduced in further legislation.

    As I have already stated, we have already had similar freedoms and rights to peaceful enjoyment of the same, additionally rights to not be deprived of these. They didn't suddenly pop into existence with the creation of the HRA or any other EU laws.

    I'm certain that you and many others will be able to find a few cases - the exception that proves the rule, so to speak. However the HRA actively hinders the administration of UK law by helping people to 'game' the system.

    If it is a piece of legislation that prevents the law (as administered by the courts of this country through common law and the parliament through statute law) from being administered, then it should be scrapped.

    Most people objecting to this have missed the point in its entirety. The suggestion is not, and never has been to abandon human rights. The issue is the nature of those rights and the people to whom they are applied and when.

    Some will obviously argue that rights are universal, and that this is a conclusion that may not be challenged. Yet there are many legitimate and entirely cogent opposing positions.

    Many people believe in a communitarian perspective, such rights are contingent on collaboration with society, and may be forfeit.

    You and many others have no problem presumably with the removal of peoples rights to freedom, movement, speech if they commit crimes. It is but a small step to suggest that some crimes entail withdrawal of additional rights - such as the absurdly written and much abused 'right to family life'.

    The HRA was no doubt well intended, but has shown itself to be not fit for purpose in its current incarnation as it has been widely open to abuse, since it turns on its head the values of fairness and common sense.
    One of the major issues here is that campaigners for change make extensive claims, but can fairly easily be pushed back on those claims as i have just done to you and to someone making even wider claims on another thread elsewhere.

    Frankly, there is no magic about the extent of rights granted by the ECHR. It was a list drawn up in the aftermath of a European war and largely for political reasons.

    There are however three principles:-

    1 It is an international treaty. So long as we adhere to it, we are bound by it and repealing the Act only means that the litigation will take place in Strasbourg rather than London. If we denounce it, that will have consequences. Other countries are entitled to react to denunciation as they think fit. If that means they won't share police intelligence, permit the transfer of data or whatever, we are stuck with that. Don't go crying over spilt milk.

    2 If it replaced, it will also be legislation to be interpreted by judges according to its tenor. Whatever it says, it will be for the courts not politicians to say what it means and I will guarantee you that politicians will not like it when it does not permit them to do whatever they want to do. Take a case of the Hackney Social Services Director in the Baby P case. This had nothing to do with human rights. This was all about procedural fairness in English law. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/jo...ng-politicians The (by now Coalition) government tried to take this decision on appeal to the Supreme Court. It wouldn't even give leave to appeal. In other words it regarded the government's position as so unarguable that it wouldn't waste its time listening to the case.

    3 The HRA is a scapegoat for all manner of government failings and the public has been whipped up over it. In one year 177 people avoided deportation through the use of Article 8. That has been widely broadcast. Try and find a published list of their offences. Try and find a published list of how many years they were in the UK before the offences. Try and find a published list of the age at which they came to the UK. My guess, but it is only a guess, is that most of them were only technically foreigners. Remember and he isn't one of the 177, the murderer of Philip Lawrence used this to avoid deportation. He came to Britain from Italy at 6, killed at 15 and was released from prison at 30. He did not speak Italian. If we look at the prisoners voting saga, the ECtHR has made it perfectly clear that a targeted prohibition would be lawful. The ban only dates from 1967. A paroled murderer can vote. That doesn't worry the government at all. Chris Huhne could vote in the recent by-election despite having pleaded guilty. That didn't worry the government. However, it would make Cameron sick (that was the phrase he used) if someone remanded in custody, who hasn't been tried, and who is later found not guilty,was allowed to vote.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    One of the particularly idiotic things in her miserably nasty speech today was when she said words to the effect that "our marvellous Supreme Court is being regarded as subsidiary by the nasty ECHR", as if our SC would be in violent disagreement with them - when only a couple of days ago, this was rubbished by Lord Neuberger!
    Indeed. She is a complete idiot. This is the home secretary who actually believed a tabloid story about a foreign criminal who was allowed to stay in the UK because he had a pet cat... she even prefixed the anecdote with "and I'm not making this up..."

    She isn't popular with judges. Especially immigration judges, who she recently lambasted for doing their jobs.

    I can't wait til we are rid of her.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Remember and he isn't one of the 177, the murderer of Philip Lawrence used this to avoid deportation. He came to Britain from Italy at 6, killed at 15 and was released from prison at 30. He did not speak Italian. If we look at the prisoners voting saga, the ECtHR has made it perfectly clear that a targeted prohibition would be lawful. The ban only dates from 1967. A paroled murderer can vote. That doesn't worry the government at all. Chris Huhne could vote in the recent by-election despite having pleaded guilty. That didn't worry the government. However, it would make Cameron sick (that was the phrase he used) if someone remanded in custody, who hasn't been tried, and who is later found not guilty,was allowed to vote.
    The Chindamo case is actually a good example of the HRA (more specifically, Art. 8, which seems to be the one which really annoys Ms May) being unfairly criticised.

    In Chindamo’s case, human rights were secondary. The main issue in the case was the EU freedom of movement law.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    The Chindamo case is actually a good example of the HRA (more specifically, Art. 8, which seems to be the one which really annoys Ms May) being unfairly criticised.

    In Chindamo’s case, human rights were secondary. The main issue in the case was the EU freedom of movement law.
    Yes, but it works for these purposes. The government would never have got over the finish line if he had been Jordanian rather than Italian.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    Indeed. She is a complete idiot. This is the home secretary who actually believed a tabloid story about a foreign criminal who was allowed to stay in the UK because he had a pet cat... she even prefixed the anecdote with "and I'm not making this up..."

    She isn't popular with judges. Especially immigration judges, who she recently lambasted for doing their jobs.

    I can't wait til we are rid of her.
    She actually just about the best Home Secretary we have had for many a long year (a greater level of administrative competence) but, like all Home Secretaries, she feels she has to play to the gallery.

    The problem is the damage it does to politics generally. It encourages distrust of politicians when they fail to deliver.

    You see it with Italy. This populist group won't go into government. They want the right to carp but without the responsibility to provide solutions.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    She actually just about the best Home Secretary we have had for many a long year.
    Hmm, I can't say I'm too keen on her.

    Each to their own though.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    One of the major issues here is that campaigners for change make extensive claims, but can fairly easily be pushed back on those claims as i have just done to you and to someone making even wider claims on another thread elsewhere.

    Frankly, there is no magic about the extent of rights granted by the ECHR. It was a list drawn up in the aftermath of a European war and largely for political reasons.

    There are however three principles:-

    1 It is an international treaty. So long as we adhere to it, we are bound by it and repealing the Act only means that the litigation will take place in Strasbourg rather than London. If we denounce it, that will have consequences. Other countries are entitled to react to denunciation as they think fit. If that means they won't share police intelligence, permit the transfer of data or whatever, we are stuck with that. Don't go crying over spilt milk.

    2 If it replaced, it will also be legislation to be interpreted by judges according to its tenor. Whatever it says, it will be for the courts not politicians to say what it means and I will guarantee you that politicians will not like it when it does not permit them to do whatever they want to do. Take a case of the Hackney Social Services Director in the Baby P case. This had nothing to do with human rights. This was all about procedural fairness in English law. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/jo...ng-politicians The (by now Coalition) government tried to take this decision on appeal to the Supreme Court. It wouldn't even give leave to appeal. In other words it regarded the government's position as so unarguable that it wouldn't waste its time listening to the case.

    3 The HRA is a scapegoat for all manner of government failings and the public has been whipped up over it. In one year 177 people avoided deportation through the use of Article 8. That has been widely broadcast. Try and find a published list of their offences. Try and find a published list of how many years they were in the UK before the offences. Try and find a published list of the age at which they came to the UK. My guess, but it is only a guess, is that most of them were only technically foreigners. Remember and he isn't one of the 177, the murderer of Philip Lawrence used this to avoid deportation. He came to Britain from Italy at 6, killed at 15 and was released from prison at 30. He did not speak Italian. If we look at the prisoners voting saga, the ECtHR has made it perfectly clear that a targeted prohibition would be lawful. The ban only dates from 1967. A paroled murderer can vote. That doesn't worry the government at all. Chris Huhne could vote in the recent by-election despite having pleaded guilty. That didn't worry the government. However, it would make Cameron sick (that was the phrase he used) if someone remanded in custody, who hasn't been tried, and who is later found not guilty,was allowed to vote.
    If you think piecemeal cherry picking of cases is pushing back, then I guess you did. I have already mentioned that the provisions so valued are not being written off wholesale, but rather to redraft it in order to attempt to avoid the widespread abuses of the system.

    The point that you are missing is that of a total of 409 people who used the HRA to argue against deportation, 177 used the provisions in Article 8. That is almost half (43% of the 409 total) who avoided deportation overall that year. Article 8 is considered probably the most widely abused provison when it comes to legally advised criminals and their solicitors building a case to avoid deportation.

    Without even the knowledge of the vast majority of their crimes and circumstances, you assume that in almost every case that they probably shouldn't be deported for whatever reason, or that most of them were only technically foreigners.

    Why should I be the one to come up with the list of the 177 crimes and circumstances when you are the one using it as your argument? What is not in dispute is that they committed crimes serious enough to have them recommended for deportation in the first place.

    In any case, society has long been concerned with finding a balance between the rights of criminals and the rights of law abiding citizens and society as a whole not to be further molested when such people commit serious crimes. Hence the usual punishment of deportation for those foreign nationals considered not to be conducive to the public good.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Please provide an example.
    A good example of negative part of HR is off that muslim man who was in the news a couple of months back called Anjem Choudary who was doing many protests around london saying how he is sick of england and wants to turn it muslim (also now wanting to make a muslim state in america), he called the queen ugly, thinks obama should be killed, disrupted the minutes silence on remembrance day, lives in a £320,000 house and gets £25,000 in benefits every year which he calls a 'Jihad seekers allowance'. He said "'We are going to take England — the Muslims are coming. Brussels is 30 per cent, 40 per cent Muslim and Amsterdam. Bradford is 17 per cent Muslim."

    And this man can not be deported because of his human rights.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    If you think piecemeal cherry picking of cases is pushing back, then I guess you did. I have already mentioned that the provisions so valued are not being written off wholesale, but rather to redraft it in order to attempt to avoid the widespread abuses of the system.

    The point that you are missing is that of a total of 409 people who used the HRA to argue against deportation, 177 used the provisions in Article 8. That is almost half (43% of the 409 total) who avoided deportation overall that year. Article 8 is considered probably the most widely abused provison when it comes to legally advised criminals and their solicitors building a case to avoid deportation.

    Without even the knowledge of the vast majority of their crimes and circumstances, you assume that in almost every case that they probably shouldn't be deported for whatever reason, or that they were only technically foreigners.

    Why should I be the one to come up with the list of the 177 crimes and circumstances when you are the one using it as your argument? What is not in dispute is that they committed crimes serious enough to have them recommended for deportation in the first place.

    In any case, society has long been concerned with finding a balance between the rights of criminals and the rights of law abiding citizens and society as a whole not to be further molested when such people commit serious crimes. Hence the usual punishment of deportation for those considered not to be conducive to the public good.
    I was asking rhetorically when I was saying "find". The information isn't out there. These aren't folk recommended for deportation. There is now a "mandatory" system to those sentenced to a year in gaol. That is I suspect why the numbers using Art 8 have taken off. When judges had to recommend for deportation, they wouldn't do it for folk they didn't think should be sent "back home". Now people, particularly technical foreigners, who in the past weren't facing deportation are now having to rely on this.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I was asking rhetorically when I was saying "find". The information isn't out there. These aren't folk recommended for deportation. There is now a "mandatory" system to those sentenced to a year in gaol. That is I suspect why the numbers using Art 8 have taken off. When judges had to recommend for deportation, they wouldn't do it for folk they didn't think should be sent "back home". Now people, particularly technical foreigners, who in the past weren't facing deportation are now having to rely on this.
    Hmm, I'm annoyed now, I edited my last post to write in 'foreign nationals not conducive to the public good', but it seems the edit hasn't gone through.

    I do know that being recommended for deportation is automatic upon spending a year in jail, but you don't spend a year in jail if you haven't committed very serious acts of criminality.

    Perhaps 'recommended for deportation' was the wrong phrase, I was taking it to mean that the potential was there for them to be deported - means that after their sentence their circumstances will be looked at and unless good reason could be shown that they shouldn't be after their circumstances were looked at, they would be deported.

    In the same way 'recommended for prosecution' means that your details will be sent to the CPS and if they think you should be prosecuted, then you will be.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Hmm, I'm annoyed now, I edited my last post to write in 'foreign nationals not conducive to the public good', but it seems the edit hasn't gone through.

    I do know that being recommended for deportation is automatic upon spending a year in jail, but you don't spend a year in jail if you haven't committed very serious acts of criminality.

    Perhaps 'recommended for deportation' was the wrong phrase, I was taking it to mean that the potential was there for them to be deported - means that after their sentence their circumstances will be looked at and unless good reason could be shown that they shouldn't be after their circumstances were looked at, they would be deported.

    In the same way 'recommended for prosecution' means that your details will be sent to the CPS and if they think you should be prosecuted, then you will be.
    Recommended for deportation was (perhaps still is) a technical phrase for what judges used to do at the end of trials of foreigners. Then as the last Home Office scandal but two revealed no-one followed up on it.

    A sentence of a year in gaol is by no-means trivial but it is something you can easily get for causing death by careless driving. Most adult burglars will pick up a 12 month sentence. Most people assume that these offenders are relatively recently off the boat but a lot of these folk will have been immigrants as children. In practical terms an offence of low criminality when young will prevent naturalisation and so they will remain technically foreign
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Recommended for deportation was (perhaps still is) a technical phrase for what judges used to do at the end of trials of foreigners. Then as the last Home Office scandal but two revealed no-one followed up on it.

    A sentence of a year in gaol is by no-means trivial but it is something you can easily get for causing death by careless driving. Most adult burglars will pick up a 12 month sentence. Most people assume that these offenders are relatively recently off the boat but a lot of these folk will have been immigrants as children. In practical terms an offence of low criminality when young will prevent naturalisation and so they will remain technically foreign
    Well, 12 months for burglars is not long enough, not by a long shot. And if they are picking up 12 months, it's either not their first job or there were many aggravating factors.

    Death by careless driving is a difficult one, but again, can't say I have much sympathy for those who get 12 months or more. Where the level of carelessness is low - for example an accident caused by momentary inattention and there are no aggravating factors, even the fact that death was caused is in almost all cases punished by a community order, and you would almost never see a term of imprisonment imposed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The consequences that this will have on Employment Law is devastating. EU directives and rulings have been an absolute blessing to employees and it'll be a very sad day if it is scrapped. Employees will again be open to abuse from every angle...

    There are a lot of issues with the European Convention on Human Rights, and some cases have resulted in absurd decisions. I would like to see England retain superior jurisdiction on handling terrorists, migration and rights of criminals, so it's a tough decision.

    I wouldn't be sure what to make of it, in one sense it'll be a sore loss for employee rights. But, in another sense it will be very welcome when handling domestic issues that the whole nation are behind, but are restricted by the powers that be in Strasbourg.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Well, 12 months for burglars is not long enough, not by a long shot. And if they are picking up 12 months, it's either not their first job or there were many aggravating factors.

    Death by careless driving is a difficult one, but again, can't say I have much sympathy for those who get 12 months or more. Where the level of carelessness is low - for example an accident caused by momentary inattention and there are no aggravating factors, even the fact that death was caused is in almost all cases punished by a community order, and you would almost never see a term of imprisonment imposed.
    You are significantly underestimating sentence length. 12 months is the starting point for a band 2 domestic burglary, first offence, not guilty plea, no aggravating factors.

    A sentence of 12 months is being handed down for plenty of causing death by careless cases. It is inevitable if drink or drugs are involved. Remember this isn't dangerous driving. The Man City player has just had 16 months, with a guilty plea. There was significant speeding but not enough for him to have got an immediate ban if someone hadn't been killed.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    You are significantly underestimating sentence length. 12 months is the starting point for a band 2 domestic burglary, first offence, not guilty plea, no aggravating factors.

    A sentence of 12 months is being handed down for plenty of causing death by careless cases. It is inevitable if drink or drugs are involved. Remember this isn't dangerous driving. The Man City player has just had 16 months, with a guilty plea. There was significant speeding but not enough for him to have got an immediate ban if someone hadn't been killed.
    I haven't underestimated anything. Significant speeding is a whole different kettle of fish, and more serious than a momentary loss of concentration.

    Where excessive speed is involved, it is no longer the offence of causing death by careless driving, it is the offence of causing death by dangerous driving, a related but more serious matter with wholly different sentencing guidelines

    The least serious level of dangerous driving includes: This is driving that created a significant risk of danger and is likely to be characterised by: [list including] Driving above the speed limit/at a speed that is inappropriate for the prevailing conditions.

    If drink or drugs are concerned this is the most serious level of DANGEROUS driving and is a world apart from the separate offence as previously stated - causing death by CARELESS driving.

    As regards burglary, Cat 2 is a mid level crime. Most domestic burglaries are (inappropriately in my view) assigned Cat 3, where the starting point is a community order, but even then community orders are imposed even for a lot of Cat 2 offences. If it is a first offence, this is automatically a mitigating factor, and so tends towards the community order end of the scale rather than the starting point, which is one year imprisonment. My personal view is that all burglars should go to prison for at least a year even for a first offence.

    Burglary (and causing death by dangerous driving) isn't something that you happen to commit accidentally with a moment's inattention, unlike causing death by careless driving, and the fact that serious prison time arises from the first two is entirely appropriate.

    Anyone who ends up getting deported because of it is entirely deserving of their fate.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Please provide an example.
    Abu Qatada.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Significant speeding is a whole different kettle of fish, and more serious than a momentary loss of concentration.

    Where excessive speed is involved, it is no longer the offence of causing death by careless driving, it is the offence of causing death by dangerous driving, a related but more serious matter with wholly different sentencing guidelines

    The least serious level of dangerous driving includes: This is driving that created a significant risk of danger and is likely to be characterised by: [list including] Driving above the speed limit/at a speed that is inappropriate for the prevailing conditions.

    If drink or drugs are concerned this is the most serious level of DANGEROUS driving and is a world apart from the separate offence as previously stated - causing death by CARELESS driving.
    In the real world deaths through speeding are frequently death with as causing death by careless driving as with the example I gave.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...s-driving.html

    As regards burglary, Cat 2 is a mid level crime. Most domestic burglaries are (inappropriately in my view) assigned Cat 3, where the starting point is a community order.
    2009 figures indicted 63% of domestic burglars received an immediate custodial sentence.

    My personal view is that all burglars should go to prison for at least a year even for a first offence.

    Burglary (and causing death by dangerous driving) isn't something that you happen to commit accidentally with a moment's inattention, unlike causing death by careless driving, and the fact that serious prison time arises from the first two is entirely appropriate.

    Anyone who ends up getting deported because of it is entirely deserving of their fate.
    I am sorry but I do not buy into the idea that one ships off someone to a place they may barely know, if indeed they have ever visited it, and who has essentially made their life here because part of that life involves the commission of a crime.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    Indeed. She is a complete idiot. This is the home secretary who actually believed a tabloid story about a foreign criminal who was allowed to stay in the UK because he had a pet cat... she even prefixed the anecdote with "and I'm not making this up..."
    Of course, that one came from her Spads, who it later transpired had not factchecked properly - I wonder if the new ECHR opt-out speech is equally meticulously researched, possibly by the same team. They are presumably on secondment from one of the Big Five or something like that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    In the real world deaths through speeding are frequently death with as causing death by careless driving as with the example I gave.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...s-driving.html
    Well, yes of course it is still possible to get custody for offences that fall short of death by dangerous driving, I never said they would not. Indeed, I don't have a problem with people being imprisoned at the higher end of the scale of careless driving (and any further consequences that might entail)

    Indeed it is probably the case that it is easier to prosecute on the basis of a lesser offence - at the higher level of careless driving (driving which fell not that far short of dangerous) rather than the lower levels of dangerous driving in order to get an incentive for a guilty plea - which he accepted. It is far more likely that had it gone to trial, they would have thrown causing death by dangerous driving at him because he was over twice the speed limit.

    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    2009 figures indicted 63% of domestic burglars received an immediate custodial sentence.
    That would be because the vast majority of domestic burglars are recidivist offenders with plenty of previous, which is an aggravating factor, and is certainly enough to make a Cat 3 burglary custodial.

    The fact that 63% of burglars got custody means that 37% didn't. I'm not going to believe that all of those 37% are first offenders either, which means that a significant number of repeat offenders are still not getting custody as they should. Of course I recognise that many will not be getting custody for serious offences because of an early guilty plea.

    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I am sorry but I do not buy into the idea that one ships off someone to a place they may barely know, if indeed they have ever visited it, and who has essentially made their life here because part of that life involves the commission of a crime.
    It's pretty much the case throughout the civilised world. I'm not saying exceptions shouldn't be made, but that's the point, it should be the exception.
 
 
 
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

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

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