That would leave us with Belarus and Kazakhstan as the only European countries who haven't signed up for human rights.

Typical Kevin Maguire Daily Mirror crap. The rubbish and lies he comes up with is unbelievable.

That isn't what was said or intended.

Dominic Grieve does not agree with the change that Cameron and some Tories want to see. Grieve was seen as a very good attorney general who was respected as being very knowledgeable about human rights law.

Even if the Tories were elected with a majority they would not be able to make the change, as quite a lot of Tory backbenchers won't support it and opposition parties will vote against.

It is purely a party political device to pander to the right wing media who keep going on about it.

didnt the cons say that they were going to repeal/amend the HRA last time, and the time before? didnt happen. cause it cant be done without something else in its place that satisfies the hr requirement for eu membership (unless leave the EU ). maybe the proposed bill will satisfy. the ECHR has been part of our law for ages prior to the HRA anyway. the HRA just 'codified' it as per eu membership requirements.

one poss option, is for the EctHR to increase its so called margin of appreciation. more of a political matter though.

They are talking about it being replaced by a UK Bill of Rights. They are using some high profile cases to promote their cause. It sounds like they want to transfer more powers to the UK Supreme Court .

didnt the cons say that they were going to repeal/amend the HRA last time, and the time before? didnt happen. cause it cant be done without something else in its place that satisfies the requirement for eu membership (unless leave the EU ). maybe the proposed bill will satisfy. the ECHR has been part of our law for ages prior to the HRA anyway. the HRA just 'codified' it as per eu membership requirements.

one poss option, is for the EctHR to increase its so called margin of appreciation. more of a political matter though.

They are talking about it being replaced by a UK Bill of Rights. They are using some high profile cases to promote their cause. It sounds like they want to transfer more powers to the UK Supreme Court .

i know. as i posted 'maybe the proposed bill will satisfy' eu requirements.

there are also lots of cases (partic criminal eg re fair trial) where the EctHR has not interfered due to its margin of a.

if we are to remain in the eu, then we would still need to satisfy the clear statement of human rights requirement of such membership (currently the HRA). prior to the hra the echr was already 'incorporated', but such incorporation was not seen as clear enough (was mostly contained in case law).

They are talking about it being replaced by a UK Bill of Rights. They are using some high profile cases to promote their cause. It sounds like they want to transfer more powers to the UK Supreme Court .

Yes they want to transfer it to the court where the judges are basically "appointed" by the government and a court which together with its government spout on about how democtratic the UK is, but in reality do not respect human rights and bang on how the normal public must respect the rule of law and decisions of the courts and judiciary, but then they blatantly ignore rulings and judgements when they don't like them. Maybe we should all start doing the same when we don't like any eu laws such as emissions, noise, etc. sorry but think Cameron and his home office ministers deserve places in history with Marx, Mugabe, polpott, putin, Hussein, etc. at least we have a mutated form of free speech, you can say or type what you want as long as it doesn't go against many laws against discrimination, electronic communication, Anything the uk or usa governments don't like, etc but even then this post will most probably get gchq on my posterior.

where the judges are basically "appointed" by the government

No they are not and if you look back you will see that the government have lost a lot of cases in the supreme court.

This means we have unelected judges running this country and not the government.

No they are not and if you look back you will see that the government have lost a lot of cases in the supreme court.

 

 

 

 

This means we have unelected judges running this country and not the government.

I think you may be looking back at before the supreme court. The supreme court justices are appointed by the queen on the recommendation of the prime minister after recommendations by a committee, all the governments cronies in other words, so please don't tell me they are independent.

even before. eg re appointment of QC's, ie potential recorders/judges. things are better, but still depends on the selection panel.

So who cares, just scrap this interference in our way of life and our sovereign laws, I've had enough of foreigners running this country.