DC is going to free us from the Human Rights Act (Europe)

[Bobbisox]

he says..
or is this a vote catcher in the coming Elections?

[MickeyTheBrick]

I don't want us to 'leave' Europe. I feel safer being in Europe when the Tories are in power here, so that they can't get away with as much like they used to eg people working 70 hours a week for £2.50 an hour, no holiday entitlement when working for agencies etc

[Gromit]

Mr Cameron is in a Coalition with the LibDems who are strongly in favour of the Human Rights Act.

He could not "Free us" even if he wanted to, without upsetting the LibDems.

In the long term, when the LibDems do very badly in the local elections, and the AV vote is lost, then picking a scrap with the LibDems to break up the Coalition would cause a General Election and the Tories might get a working majority (without having to share power with those pesky libDems).

But in the meantime, just like when he was in opposition, Cameron can (and will) promise the Earth, but it won't be deliverable.

[Sqad]

BobbI ....when ever a Politician of whichever persuasion makes any "earth shattering announcement" the usual cry goes up "It's just a vote catcher"

It may well be, but on the other hand it might not and getting into power is all about "getting the votes"

[Gromit]

Authoritarian Politicians do not like the Human Rights Act because it gives all of us strong rights which are beyond their ephemeral grip of their power. In short, it protects each and everyone of us. Admittedly, it is flawed, but scrapping the whole thing, would be a retrograde and very bad move.

[R1Geezer]

mickey, he's talking about the dreadful oooman rites act, not the EU per se, but while he's at it......

[Bobbisox]

Morning sqad and all
I refer to cases such as this

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/185317

DS not my thing but am sure other papers will carry the story too

[tamborine]

Its a step in the right direction whether he pulls it off or not.

[Gromit]

Bobbi

And here is the Human Rights Act working for a family.

// Today at Winchester Crown Court, an inquest found that murder victim Naomi Bryant was unlawfully killed due to an astounding series of public authority failings. Mother-of-one Naomi was killed by convicted sex offender Anthony Rice while he was on licence from prison in 2005.
The Coroner originally decided not to hold an inquest after Rice confessed to the murder. Liberty, acting on behalf of Naomi’s mother Verna Bryant, used Article 2 of the Human Rights Act – the right to life – to secure an inquest into her death. //

http://www.liberty-hu...ds-institutional-.php

As I said, the HRA is flawed, but there is a lot which we should not discard just because of a few high profile cases.

[Bobbisox]

I agree Tamb although I can't see the Lib Dems agreeing with it?

[Davethedog]

We don't need freeing from it, far from it, what we need to do is find a way of stopping wilful abuse of it.

[Bobbisox]

Triggs, I was merely pointing out if this was indeed, a vote catcher, and your list is perfectly correct but do we really need to house the person in the NP article?
what about his victim having
<the right to life >

[Bobbisox]

Gromit, I agree
but when it comes to acts of killing a person and then driving away, do we still have to cow-tow to this persons HR?
I am trying for an honest debate here and not being contoversial

[Gromit]

Bobbi,

It now sounds like you do not want it scrapped for everyone, just for some people. For laws to work they have to be universal. That sometimes involves accepting some bad things, if the overall benefits are greater. You may think criminal do not deserve any rights, but in a civilised country, the do.

[Bobbisox]

in a nutshell Gromit, I think the people like the one in the Press should not be given this status, if that means new clauses in the HRA, so be it

[starone]

Very idealistic, so why does it not appear to work properly? Why does it seem to be weighed in favour of the perpetrator and not the victim, for instance?

[Bobbisox]

exactly Star

[Gromit]

// Very idealistic, so why does it not appear to work properly? Why does it seem to be weighed in favour of the perpetrator and not the victim, for instance? //

I posted an example of it working for the victim above. There will be very many instances of it working for the victim but they do not get reported because they are not sensationalist or cause outrage.

http://www.ourhumanri...nstitute-human-rights

[Bobbisox]

so Gromit, would you agree that people like Mohamed Ibrahim who is an illegal immigrant anyway, should have his HRs?