Anyone who wants a summary of why the worryingly ignorant and muddled plans of the dangerously incompetent buffoon Grayling are ludicrous could do worse for an introduction than read this article:
[urlhttp://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n20/francis-fitzgibbon/short-cuts[/url

The trouble is that among the dumbed-down masses, detailed consideration is not popular and Daily Wail stylee kneejerks are. So no doubt as long as Grayling remains in post, he will continue to get away with his bizarre "reforms" while the reputation of British law built up over centuries goes swirling down the pan.

Why would we need a Bill of Rights. We already have all those rights set down in law.

The reason the US Bill of Rights was so important was they didn't currently hold those rights and were setting up their own country.

We should help Iraq and Afghanistan set one up. That'd be a far better use of time.

I was working in the Home Office when the HRA was being discussed and introduced, and one of the key reasons for it (I skimmed the link so it may have been covered) was to avoid people having to take their case on anything under the convention to the dreaded "Strasbourg" as their rights could be a) decided by UK courts instead and b) included in any new legislation, policies and revisions of policy which meant that the possibility of having to go to court at all was reduced. Public bodies and others were required to consider Convention rights as part of any proposals.

This beneficial point seems to be missed and "human rights" is now a great demon only used by ne'er do wells who shouldn't have rights anyway.

At the risk of invoking Godwin, it shouldn't be forgotten that the Convention, and the rights that flow from it, was developed from the universal declaration after the Second World War to avoid the whole Nazi thing happening again. How interesting that this current lot want to withdraw from the convention!

Outstanding assassination of Grayling is that. If he read it, it ought to persuade him to resign!

This week's [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04l0wzvLaw in Action[/url on Radio 4 makes an interesting listen. Apart from being presented by Joshua Rozenburg, the panel of; Lord Judge, Lady Hale and Keir Starmer discuss the "most significant legal developments over the last 30 years"

Apart from being Justice Secretary, Grayling is also Lord Chancellor and I can't find out who was the last Lord Chancellor who had zero legal experience before him. Mind you, we've got a Health Secretary who believes in homeopathy and only recently ditched an Environment Secretary who believes gobal warming is a myth

I suspect those who were initially involved in the Convention could never have envisaged how it is now being (mis)used!

You mean in terms of protecting people from arbitrary, biased decisions?

No

What then?

Voting rights for prisoners.

Are you telling me issues such as that was considered by those drafting the convention?

Parliament in this country should decide the laws of this country.

Why should that be an issue with anyone?



They probably never considered iPads or Blackberries either. Again relevance?



Parliament does decide the laws in this country but they should always be decided with a mind to the various conventions that we are signatories.

Another penny in the (UKIP) hat...

At least he didn't mention cats

Nothing wrong with the Human Rights legislation, it's the abuse of it that wrankles a lot of people.

You can say that about most legislation designed to protect the vulnerable, you just have to make sure the negatives are outweighed by nthe positives.

Yep. Virtually every law has potential problems and abuses of it. It doesn't mean you get rid of them when they work well in most cases.

If you don't even comprehend that Parliament DOES decide the laws of this country then you are too stupid to usefully join this debate.

Ask the Government and Parliament.



No Technology has no relevance to human rights but thanks for answering my question in the negative.

You are too stupid to have a discussion without resorting to abuse and childish insults as you always do.

Like all those vulnerable prisoners?

I noticed you ignored this in relation to prisoners voting rights in favour of a cheap point scoring attempt....

"Are you telling me issues such as that was considered by those drafting the convention?"

Fortunately the legislators involved in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its follow on into the European Convention on Human Rights had recognised that legislation written in stone for all time would not last one generation before some loophole or unforeseen circumstance allowed a country to by-pass the agreements, so with foresight they allowed for amendments, as do most legislators when writing laws that will change the course of history.

Unfortunately that is not something that is easily understood by commentators who regularly wheel out the old chestnut of "Ah yes but Winston Churchill never meant for the gays to be equal, etc, etc, etc..."

Oh dear, touched that nerve did I?

In fact, if I assume (as I do) that you actually read the article to which I linked, then (even if you didn't know before) you would know (if not too stupid to understand it) that Parliament DOES decide the laws of this country.

I am not offering abuse. I am pointing out a simple fact, that if you fail to comprehend that simple point then it MUST be you are too stupid to usefully debate the issue.

But as a personal service, here is a short relevant excerpt, which I've coloured in a bit to make it easier for you to see the particularly apposite bits:



Is the subtlety therefore lost on you too? I suggested it was, as you said:


Well, NEWSFLASH for AJW - IT ALREADY DOES. I am not abusing you, I entirely allow for the possibility that maybe you are NOT too stupid to understand this; but then I would be forced to wonder why you PRETENDED not to, and claim the case is otherwise, wouldn't I?

Why would it have occurred to them? If a list of what did occur to them was available I'd love to see it. Reading the articles I'd suggest the problems of the second world war, such as forced labour camps, concentration/torture camps, the freedom for people to practice a religion if they choose to, and the right to liberty (save in certain circumstances) would have been uppermost in the consideration, because of the timing. If the whole thing was drafted now, different considerations would be taken into account.

What did occur to them, as JC pointed out, was that things may [uchange[/u in future, so the articles are very general and there is room for interpretation and amendment if required, and if circumstances suggest it. Do you imagine gay marriage was considered? Or anything now possible in 2014? Of course not.

FWIW, and without wishing to move the debate away from general principles, I have no problem with certain prisoners voting. Cleverer people than me will pick the bones out of all that and something acceptable will result, hopefully. Do you have a particular issue with that?

Oh and lol at the accusation of ignoring a question

Chris28

Why certain prisoners, why not all or none at all?