Jump to content


rebel11

Conservatives want to scrap the Human Rights Act

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1841 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

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

 


Welcome to Consumer Action Group

 

'Challenges are what makes life interesting; overcoming them is what makes life meaningful.'

Joshua J. Marine

 

1) CLAIM BACK ALL PENALTY CHARGES CLICK HERE

2) CLAIM BACK ALL MIS-SOLD PPI CLICK HERE

3) COMPOUNDED CONTRACTUAL INTEREST CLICK HERE

4) REQUEST CCA FROM CREDITOR CLICK HERE

5) OFT- UNENFORCEABLE AGREEMENTS CLICK HERE

6) CAREY V HSBC (2009) CLICK HERE

7) DON'T BE BULLIED BY CREDITORS / DCA's CLICK HERE

8) IN DEBT DON'T PANIC CLICK HERE

9) FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT CLICK HERE

10) SALE OF GOODS ACT-EDUCATE YOUR RETAILER CLICK HERE

11) DISTANCE SELLING-EDUCATE YOR RETAILERCLICK HERE

12) SOGA SUMMARY CLICK HERE

13) WHICH? TEMPLATES [/url]CLICK HERE

14) DOES YOU BANK TREAT YOU FAIRLY BCOBSCLICK HERE

15) EVERYTHING HOUSING CLICK HERE

16) UTILITY BACKBILLING CLICK HERE

17) OFGEM - COMPLAINTSCLICK HERE

18) OFCOM - COMPLAINTS CLICK HERE

DON'T GIVE UP, THIS SITE WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH GUIDANCE AND EMPOWERMENT

 

Don't forget to donate to this site

 

Please let us know how your problem has been resolved, it could help fellow Caggers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

 

That isn't what was said or intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


Welcome to Consumer Action Group

 

'Challenges are what makes life interesting; overcoming them is what makes life meaningful.'

Joshua J. Marine

 

1) CLAIM BACK ALL PENALTY CHARGES CLICK HERE

2) CLAIM BACK ALL MIS-SOLD PPI CLICK HERE

3) COMPOUNDED CONTRACTUAL INTEREST CLICK HERE

4) REQUEST CCA FROM CREDITOR CLICK HERE

5) OFT- UNENFORCEABLE AGREEMENTS CLICK HERE

6) CAREY V HSBC (2009) CLICK HERE

7) DON'T BE BULLIED BY CREDITORS / DCA's CLICK HERE

8) IN DEBT DON'T PANIC CLICK HERE

9) FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT CLICK HERE

10) SALE OF GOODS ACT-EDUCATE YOUR RETAILER CLICK HERE

11) DISTANCE SELLING-EDUCATE YOR RETAILERCLICK HERE

12) SOGA SUMMARY CLICK HERE

13) WHICH? TEMPLATES [/url]CLICK HERE

14) DOES YOU BANK TREAT YOU FAIRLY BCOBSCLICK HERE

15) EVERYTHING HOUSING CLICK HERE

16) UTILITY BACKBILLING CLICK HERE

17) OFGEM - COMPLAINTSCLICK HERE

18) OFCOM - COMPLAINTS CLICK HERE

DON'T GIVE UP, THIS SITE WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH GUIDANCE AND EMPOWERMENT

 

Don't forget to donate to this site

 

Please let us know how your problem has been resolved, it could help fellow Caggers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).


IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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


IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...