ChatterBank1 min ago
Human Rights Laws
Nick Clegg said at the Liberal conference that Human rights legislation is here to stay. He got resounding applause for doing so.
The Conservatives either want to reform the human rights legislation or draw up a British bill of rights.
Which party is right and if there were a referendum what would they likely choose?
The Conservatives either want to reform the human rights legislation or draw up a British bill of rights.
Which party is right and if there were a referendum what would they likely choose?
Answers
1 to 6 of 6
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1100. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don't think anyone is against Human Rights, I think many are against what we have implemented. The Human Rights act is anything but, it basically protects the rights of miscreants at the expense of the rights for the masses. It has the secondary function(possibly primary, see Mrs Blair) of course, of lining the pockets of herds of parasitical lawyers who persuade said miscreants to sue the giovernement because there cell is not feng shued!
So I would say the Tories are correct in their aim to reform it.
So I would say the Tories are correct in their aim to reform it.
Regular readers will know my stance on this matter. Article 8 in particular (the right to a “family life”) is being stretched ever further. Earlier this week a convicted rapist was allowed to stay here against the wishes of the Home Office, using Article 8 as his reasons. He was refused leave to appeal under the UK’s 1998 Human Rights Act so instead jetted off to Strasbourg (or rather his expensive legal team – paid for by the taxpayer, natch -did). There a panel of seven foreign judges granted him the right to stay here even though he was not married and had no children.
Many decisions made under the ECHR and the 1998 Human Rights Act are affronts to the law abiding majority in the UK. Mr Cameron should stand by his promise to at least review the legislation and make it far less liable to be used as a tool for foreign criminals to remain here when the courts have ordered their deportation or to be used by “travellers” to circumvent planning law.
If Mr Clegg and his bunch of General Election also-rans get upset so be it. Cameron should do what he should have done in May 2010: ran the country with a minority government, called a General Election after being defeated in the Commons once or twice and see that election consign Clegg and his cronies to the political backwater where they belong.
Many decisions made under the ECHR and the 1998 Human Rights Act are affronts to the law abiding majority in the UK. Mr Cameron should stand by his promise to at least review the legislation and make it far less liable to be used as a tool for foreign criminals to remain here when the courts have ordered their deportation or to be used by “travellers” to circumvent planning law.
If Mr Clegg and his bunch of General Election also-rans get upset so be it. Cameron should do what he should have done in May 2010: ran the country with a minority government, called a General Election after being defeated in the Commons once or twice and see that election consign Clegg and his cronies to the political backwater where they belong.
The more I hear the Lib/Dems the more I believe they formed a wrong coalition . They are left of Labour so joining with the Tories makes little sense . They only did it to get a vote on AV and now that dream has gone for many years.
I don't think Labour wants them either . Gordon Browne got that right.
I don't think Labour wants them either . Gordon Browne got that right.
The reason the LibDems joined the Tories in a coalition was purely arithmetical, modeller. Political persuasions did not come into that equation.
A coalition with Labour would have held 315 seats. This would still have been a minority (only 8 seats more than the Conservatives held alone) and would probably have lasted no longer than the Tories alone would have. A coalition with the Tories was a far more attractive proposition, especially one which immediately declared (unconstitutionally) that they would be tied to a five year term.
Fortunately, as you point out, the unison did serve one useful purpose – that of kicking into the long grass hopefully permanently the preposterous AV system.
The LibDems would get into bed with the Monster Raving Looney Party if they thought they would be given the spare keys to No.10. In the sport of boxing some of the participants are sometimes known as “a nuisance”. They have absolutely no chance of success, but cause problems for the top competitors. So it is with the LibDems. They are a nuisance of the first order and the fact that they are calling the tune in so many important areas of government policy is a scandal.
A coalition with Labour would have held 315 seats. This would still have been a minority (only 8 seats more than the Conservatives held alone) and would probably have lasted no longer than the Tories alone would have. A coalition with the Tories was a far more attractive proposition, especially one which immediately declared (unconstitutionally) that they would be tied to a five year term.
Fortunately, as you point out, the unison did serve one useful purpose – that of kicking into the long grass hopefully permanently the preposterous AV system.
The LibDems would get into bed with the Monster Raving Looney Party if they thought they would be given the spare keys to No.10. In the sport of boxing some of the participants are sometimes known as “a nuisance”. They have absolutely no chance of success, but cause problems for the top competitors. So it is with the LibDems. They are a nuisance of the first order and the fact that they are calling the tune in so many important areas of government policy is a scandal.
1 to 6 of 6
