This would win my vote

[joinerjohn]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21726612

Yes, yes , yes. They'll get my vote, but you can't trust any of the parties can you ??

 

[joe-90]

I note that he conveniently didn't refer to UKIP. Does he think the electorate is that dumb? Or is there already a plan to join up with UKIP? The latter is more likely.

 

[joinerjohn]

No one referred to UKIP Joe, I wasn't going to. I was simply stating a fact. I've always thought the Human Rights Act was (and still is) a pernicious piece of legislation, used in totally the wrong way. It should be abolished and replaced with a Human Responsibility Act, which places upon each and everyone of us the responsibility for our own actions. Something the courts , day after day, case after case , seem to have forgotten. Criminals come up in front of them and time after time, some other factor/person/authority is blamed for that criminal's irresponsibility.

 

[ellal]

Should I take it as read then JJ that you are either

a. not human, or
b. human, but not deserving of any basic rights?

There is nothing fundamentally wong with the HRA - it is the INTERPRETATION of it that is at fault...

The nasty party would love to get the UK out of it, as it would give them endless wet dreams working out countless new ways to f*ck us over!

 

[joinerjohn]

I agree with you on that ellal, which is why I'd prefer the HRA to be scrapped and replaced with a human responsibilities act. Only one word changed, but surely judges and lawmakers couldn't interpret that wrong?

 

[maltaron]

Don't hold your breath, the current Government promised to scrap the HR laws, but then forgot what they said (conveniently)

 

[Dave54]

"Would consider" and "If they won the 2015 election"
In other words vote us in next time. We'll then "consider" the HR stuff (and then leave things as they are?)
You can never get a straight yes or no out of politicians can you?

 

[joinerjohn]

Exactly Dave,, Labour promised us a vote on the Lisbon Treaty. Did we get one?? Nah did we f***.

 

[peterperfection]

"Would consider" and "If they won the 2015 election"
In other words vote us in next time. We'll then "consider" the HR stuff (and then leave things as they are?)
You can never get a straight yes or no out of politicians can you?

.

Good for you Dave .
'Would Consider' means nothing .

 

[peterperfection]

A referendum 'BEFORE' a Election would be beneficial to voters.
No party would be brave enough to allow it though--despite the politicians purpose being to serve the electorate .

I know it's a bit of a 'swerve' 'off topic'- but , it's all tied in to the bigger picture.

 

[ellal]

A referendum 'BEFORE' a Election would be beneficial to voters.
No party would be brave enough to allow it though--despite the politicians purpose being to serve the electorate .

I know it's a bit of a 'swerve' 'off topic'- but , it's all tied in to the bigger picture.

We should have a proper written constitution, and in that constitution a cast iron clause that if a certain percentage of the population demand it a referendum must be held within a certain time frame...

This is currently being introduced in Iceland at a level of about 10% and a 6 month time limit...

Weasel politicians should be made to do what we want, not what they and their backers/bankers/businesses want!

 

[Dave54]

A referendum 'BEFORE' a Election would be beneficial to voters.
No party would be brave enough to allow it though--despite the politicians purpose being to serve the electorate .

I know it's a bit of a 'swerve' 'off topic'- but , it's all tied in to the bigger picture.

We should have a proper written constitution, and in that constitution a cast iron clause that if a certain percentage of the population demand it a referendum must be held within a certain time frame...

This is currently being introduced in Iceland at a level of about 10% and a 6 month time limit...

Weasel politicians should be made to do what we want, not what they and their backers/bankers/businesses want!

Absolutely agree, they really should be made to do what we want! The tail has been wagging the dog for far too long now. If it truly is democratic here then lets see some proof that it is. Lets see a few promises kept, and no more of these lies by omission or "promises" that are open to an alternative interpretation at a later date.
Sitting outside, so to speak it looks increasingly more like an exclusive club with expensive perks for the few to me.

 

[bhm1712]

we only ever hear of the bad things which come from the human rights act, but we have no regard for the good it does. Without the human rights act who knows what would happen. Human responsibility is completely different to basic rights. Responsibility and rights are completely different.

Do you think that the HRA is only to do with not deporting criminals and terrorists/extremists?

Basic Human rights act:

Article 2 - the right to life

Article 3 - the right not to be tortured or inhumanly or degradingly treated or punished

Article 4 - the right not to be required to perform forced labour

Article 5 - the right to liberty and security of the person

Article 6 - the right to a fair trial (and to a range of other associated things, such as the free assistance of an interpreter if one cannot understand the language in a trial situation)

Article 7 - the right not to be punished for something which was not a crime at the time it was done

Article 8 - the right to respect for one's private and family life, correspondence and home

Article 9 - the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Article 10 - the right to freedom of expression, freedom to hold opinions and freedom to receive and impart information

Article 11 - the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association with others

Article 12 - the right to marry and found a family

Article 14 - the right not to have Convention rights secured in a discriminatory way

Protocol 1, Article 1- the right to peaceful enjoyment of one's possessions

Protocol 1, Article 2- the right to education

Protocol 1, Article 3- the right to free and secret elections at reasonable intervals

 

[AronSearle]

Thanks for listing a number of items that existed under english law anyway.

Not that it matters, it's all bullshit talk.

You can't "dump" the human rights act without leaving Europe.

It is not up for discussion.

 

[wobs]

we only ever hear of the bad things which come from the human rights act, but we have no regard for the good it does. Without the human rights act who knows what would happen. Human responsibility is completely different to basic rights. Responsibility and rights are completely different.

Do you think that the HRA is only to do with not deporting criminals and terrorists/extremists?

Basic Human rights act:

Article 2 - the right to life

Article 3 - the right not to be tortured or inhumanly or degradingly treated or punished

Article 4 - the right not to be required to perform forced labour

Article 5 - the right to liberty and security of the person

Article 6 - the right to a fair trial (and to a range of other associated things, such as the free assistance of an interpreter if one cannot understand the language in a trial situation)

Article 7 - the right not to be punished for something which was not a crime at the time it was done

Article 8 - the right to respect for one's private and family life, correspondence and home

Article 9 - the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Article 10 - the right to freedom of expression, freedom to hold opinions and freedom to receive and impart information

Article 11 - the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association with others

Article 12 - the right to marry and found a family

Article 14 - the right not to have Convention rights secured in a discriminatory way

Protocol 1, Article 1- the right to peaceful enjoyment of one's possessions

Protocol 1, Article 2- the right to education

Protocol 1, Article 3- the right to free and secret elections at reasonable intervals

Interesting that it appears that the right to not have unnecessary medical procedures carried out without your consent is not in there.

Even though UNESCO do list it:
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

The autonomy of persons to make decisions, while taking responsibility for those decisions and respecting the autonomy of others, is to be respected. For persons who are not capable of exercising autonomy, special measures are to be taken to protect their rights and interests.”

“Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.”

“In applying and advancing scientific knowledge, medical practice and associated technologies, human vulnerability should be taken into account. Individuals and groups of special vulnerability should be protected and the personal integrity of such individuals respected.”

“The fundamental equality of all human beings in dignity and rights is to be respected so that they are treated justly and equitably.”

But then male circumcision would be frowned upon, and we can't have boys having the same human rights as girls. No of course not.