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

Human Rights Act to be scrapped... Watch

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)



    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.
    Not really. The American system is complex and in practice it is hard to deport a permanent resident. Canada is in a hopeless tangle. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/daily...192209444.html France makes a lot of noises but noticeably hasn't got rid of many North African criminals. The country that is very adept at this, usually in our direction, is Australia but there is certainly the impression that it deports at the end of a working life so as to throw elderly care costs on the UK.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Not really. The American system is complex and in practice it is hard to deport a permanent resident. Canada is in a hopeless tangle. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/daily...192209444.html France makes a lot of noises but noticeably hasn't got rid of many North African criminals. The country that is very adept at this, usually in our direction, is Australia but there is certainly the impression that it deports at the end of a working life so as to throw elderly care costs on the UK.
    Erm, I meant (as in reply to your point) that the general view across the governments and the respective populations of the civilised world is that foreign offenders who commit crimes in their country are preferably deported at the end of their sentences.

    Whether or not it is easy to do so is a separate issue and whether the US, Canadians, French etc have the wherewithal and the ability to enforce these deportations in the face of legal challenges and loopholes exploited by the criminal's defence attorneys is neither here nor there.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I believe the Human Rights Act is a waste of time. The people that made the act break it daily. You can't express your opinions on certain things, there are millions of people in places like Africa that have to put up with poverty and famine. It's just the title of a false act that helps global leaders sleep at night.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    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.
    Maybe not all of the 37%, but I'd put money on most of the 37% being first time offenders. Also bare in mind that for those who commit a third domestic burglary, there is a mandatory minimum sentence of 3 years.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Just heard TM on the news that they are looking to scrap this. About time too. Well, not simply scrap it, but do away with the current form and we re-write our own version to meet the needs and best interests of the majority of people who live here.

    One of the big problems with the current state of affairs are the completely perverse ways that it has been interpreted.

    EDIT - 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.

    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.

    Fully agree with this. This is a great day for democracy, justice and common sense.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Can't anybody see what the bumbling Tories are doing?


    "We'll have an EU referendum..."

    "We'll scrap the HRA..."

    "We'll do all of these things..... only if you elect us in 2015. :innocent:"

    In other words, more politicking.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    Can't anybody see what the bumbling Tories are doing?


    "We'll have an EU referendum..."

    "We'll scrap the HRA..."

    "We'll do all of these things - if you elect us in 2015."

    In other words, more politicking.
    Ya.

    I'm surprised they aren't pushing for a Tory Rights Act. Something along the lines of:

    * No mention of Europe to be permitted in any public discourse.
    * Michael Gove, Ian Duncan-Smith and other senior Tories to be granted automatic powers over all legislation and no appeal.
    * Parliament to be renamed 'The Bullingdon', with a 'Bullingdon Bar', 'Bullingdon Shopping Mall', etc.
    * All bankers to be granted 3 times the rights enjoyed by non-bankers.
    * Any further mention of Boris to be restricted to Page 46 of the Standard.

    Etc.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    has shown itself to be not fit for purpose in its current incarnation as it has been widely open to abuse
    How widely exactly? Not seen that much of it myself. Is that really such a massive problem that we fail to deport a handfull of criminals because they use their rights? Doesn't seem a proportionate response to me.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Ya.

    I'm surprised they aren't pushing for a Tory Rights Act. Something along the lines of:

    * No mention of Europe to be permitted in any public discourse.
    * Michael Gove, Ian Duncan-Smith and other senior Tories to be granted automatic powers over all legislation and no appeal.
    * Parliament to be renamed 'The Bullingdon', with a 'Bullingdon Bar', 'Bullingdon Shopping Mall', etc.
    * All bankers to be granted 3 times the rights enjoyed by non-bankers.
    * Any further mention of Boris to be restricted to Page 46 of the Standard.

    Etc.

    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    Can't anybody see what the bumbling Tories are doing?


    "We'll have an EU referendum..."

    "We'll scrap the HRA..."

    "We'll do all of these things..... only if you elect us in 2015. :innocent:"

    In other words, more politicking.
    Yes I know, a political party having policies for the next election, who would have thought it?!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    Yes I know, a political party having policies for the next election, who would have thought it?!
    No, rather what it means is that they're only in it for themselves and for power and actually care nothing for the will of the people.

    Why not have an EU referendum now?

    Why not begin to implement the scrapping of the HRA now and begin to investigate alternatives etc now??

    Party politics has quickly become detrimental to actually getting things done.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    No, rather what it means is that they're only in it for themselves and for power and actually care nothing for the will of the people.

    Why not have an EU referendum now?

    Why not begin to implement the scrapping of the HRA now and begin to investigate alternatives etc now??

    Party politics has quickly become detrimental to actually getting things done.
    There is a party called the Lib Dems who will not let these go through.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It will never happen. The Tories have said this so many times before. The HRA is so embedded in our legal and political systems that it would be a massive headache to withdraw. Not only that, it would be difficult from a legal perspective, given the relationship between the EU and the ECHR. On that note, could someone out there clarify the implications (if any) of the EU acceding to the ECHR for us withdrawing from the HRA?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chriswalker)
    It will never happen. The Tories have said this so many times before. The HRA is so embedded in our legal and political systems that it would be a massive headache to withdraw. Not only that, it would be difficult from a legal perspective, given the relationship between the EU and the ECHR. On that note, could someone out there clarify the implications (if any) of the EU acceding to the ECHR for us withdrawing from the HRA?
    The funny thing is that even if we get rid of the HRA, we are still bound by the ECHR - which means that it is futile to "scrap the HRA". This is a ridiculous emotional/knee-jerk reaction on the part of Mrs May - or, rather, it is simply a cheap pandering to the people.

    In short, we would still be well and truly bound to the ECHR - so repealing the HRA would yield nothing except to project the image that the government is "doing something".
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    There is a party called the Lib Dems who will not let these go through.
    That is not the impression we are getting.

    Prime Minister Cameron categorically said that if the Conservatives are voted in, then they will have a referendum.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    How widely exactly? Not seen that much of it myself. Is that really such a massive problem that we fail to deport a handfull of criminals because they use their rights? Doesn't seem a proportionate response to me.
    It is a massive problem any time that those who have abused British hospitality to the point where a British court decides that the Home Secretary of the day is justified in requiring their deportation using powers granted to them under British statute law are then overruled by a foreign court, setting aside British law.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    They'll need to do more than simply repeal Labour's 1998 Human Rights Act to escape the jurisdiction of the European Convention (and Court) of Human Rights, which was entrenched/made mandatory for EU member states via the Lisbon Treaty (signed for the UK by Brown in 2009).

    The UK will have to leave the European Union. Otherwise it is just more worthless rhetoric.
    It wasn't actually, but it would cause something of a constitutional crisis in the EU if a member-state tried to withdraw.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    It is a massive problem any time that those who have abused British hospitality to the point where a British court decides that the Home Secretary of the day is justified in requiring their deportation using powers granted to them under British statute law are then overruled by a foreign court, setting aside British law.
    The head of the Supreme Court here is on record as saying that the decision would be the same in the UK court.

    Do you think that Home Secretaries should be above the law in deciding these things? The law should be changed if it's wrong, but in the meantime, it's up to the courts to determine the legal validity of cases. The ECHR was applying European Law to the case. It was the British Court of Appeal in 2008 that first decided Abu Q couldn't be returned because of the use of torture in Jordan, not the European courts.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    It is a massive problem
    How? I'm not seeing it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    How? I'm not seeing it.
    Well, you are entitled to your opinion of course. The fact that a party feel the need to include it as a manifesto pledge would seem to indicate that they are doing it in order to garner a significant number of votes from people who do see it as a problem.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    The head of the Supreme Court here is on record as saying that the decision would be the same in the UK court.

    Do you think that Home Secretaries should be above the law in deciding these things? The law should be changed if it's wrong, but in the meantime, it's up to the courts to determine the legal validity of cases. The ECHR was applying European Law to the case. It was the British Court of Appeal in 2008 that first decided Abu Q couldn't be returned because of the use of torture in Jordan, not the European courts.
    I do not think that Home Secretaries should be above the law no. The point is that the Home Secretary is not above the law, and is only attempting to carry out deportations according to British law as enacted.

    Practically speaking, since the government makes the law, the views of the Home Secretary are generally in line with what the government of the day wishes, otherwise they don't get to be Home Secretary.

    Just like a self licking ice cream cone.
 
 
 
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.