advertisement


Tory Britain

Like the previous poster, you take the Human Rights act 1998 at face value, rather than looking at how it's performed in practice. .

The fact that good laws are not enacted is no argument for their removal. That's a twisted, self-defeating and rather dangerous rationale. The avoidance of action on existing laws is pretty much standard Tory strategy.

For example, we have existing legislation and "watchdogs" for environmental protection, but the agencies charged with their enactment are deliberately rendered toothless and have board members who are the same self-interested people whose industry is committing the harms.

If a scandal erupts, new laws and watchdogs can be created to make sure that the "lessons learned" from the exposed corruption can be enforced. We can all "move on" and then the new laws and watchdog can be starved of resources and forgotten about. Rinse and repeat and down the plug-hole we go.
 
Seems to me these are arguments for strengthening the HRA. Also the issues you mention are qualified not absolute rights and governments would claim that the restrictions they imposed were necessary and proportionate.
Obviously this is open to question and challenge but HRA cases can only be brought by people directly affected, obviously a long and expensive process. A third party, for example a voluntary organisation or the EHRC, cannot challenge the government in court on whether the HRA has been breached by a particular law.
You still haven't explained why the right to family life is a "bugbear".
Arguments for strengthening human rights, but not the HRA because it is almost completely ineffective. Just look at the thread recently started on Benefits fraud, the DWP to get powers of arrest, will the HRA stop that? Did it stop RIPA being watered down by IPA in 2016? These are qualified rights, but absolute rights tend not to be an issue in the first world. The UK was a considerably freer place in the 1990s. I'm just wondering why all the hand wringing over abolishing the act? Article 8 is perceived as being a way in which 'foreign' criminals can thwart justice, it's a headline winner for sure, though it's not always article 8 which enables this.
 
Like the previous poster, you take the Human Rights act 1998 at face value, rather than looking at how it's performed in practice. Take RIPA for instance, the Tories IPA (2016) significantly increased the surveillance powers of the state, the HRA dd not stop this from happening.. The UK does not have to even obey the European courts decisions, merely to take them into account. Despite being subject to its laws, the HRA has done nothing to stop the Tories or Labour before them from infringements on our right to protest, or our freedom of speech.

Arguments for strengthening human rights, but not the HRA because it is almost completely ineffective. Just look at the thread recently started on Benefits fraud, the DWP to get powers of arrest, will the HRA stop that? Did it stop RIPA being watered down by IPA in 2016? These are qualified rights, but absolute rights tend not to be an issue in the first world. The UK was a considerably freer place in the 1990s. I'm just wondering why all the hand wringing over abolishing the act? Article 8 is perceived as being a way in which 'foreign' criminals can thwart justice, it's a headline winner for sure, though it's not always article 8 which enables this.
The HRA provides a way for other legislation, such as RIPA/IPA to be challenged by people who have been affected. Remove that aspect, and there are no constraints on what the government can and will do because there's no basis to say the law is unfair, or infringes fundamental rights. And I'm not sure I'd agree with your characterisation of IPA as watering down RIPA. What IPA 2016 did was bake in clearer and arguably stronger protections on the use of intrusive powers by government and authority. It did this because the European Court of Justice struck down DRIPA - a piece of legislation aligned to RIPA - as not compliant with the rights and freedoms of individuals as, for example, set out in the EDHR. Now that we're out from under the yoke of the ECJ, we need these routes to domestic challenge even more than ever.

It remains to be seen whether the DWP benefit fraud thing will actually see the light of day, but I strongly suspect that if it doesn't, the HRA will feature prominently in any arguments that help to bring it down. Just as I expect that the HRA will feature prominently in any cases challenging government curbs on the right to protest, or police action in breaking up peaceful vigils, say.
 
Arguments for strengthening human rights, but not the HRA because it is almost completely ineffective. Just look at the thread recently started on Benefits fraud, the DWP to get powers of arrest, will the HRA stop that?

For an example of how human rights legislation can protect benefit claimants see https://www.equalityhumanrights.com...urley-ors-v-secretary-state-work-and-pensions
IANAL but I suspect the powers granted to DWP will be challenged on privacy grounds, for a start.
 
For an example of how human rights legislation can protect benefit claimants see https://www.equalityhumanrights.com...urley-ors-v-secretary-state-work-and-pensions
IANAL but I suspect the powers granted to DWP will be challenged on privacy grounds, for a start.
There is an abiding principle in the HRA, that any interference with a human right must be necessary (ie, there’s no obvious or easier, or less interferey way to achieve the legitimate objective) and proportionate (ie, the interference is justified by the importance of the measure to be employed). These are good tests. In the case of the DWP stuff, I think you’d want to know how much fraud the measure was expected to prevent, how much the measure cost, and whether the same cost, spent elsewhere (eg, in looking at dodgy government contracts and VIP lanes) might achieve more. If you remove that “necessary and proportionate” proviso, you could unleash all sorts of demons.
 
.
The HRA provides a way for other legislation, such as RIPA/IPA to be challenged by people who have been affected. Remove that aspect, and there are no constraints on what the government can and will do because there's no basis to say the law is unfair, or infringes fundamental rights. And I'm not sure I'd agree with your characterisation of IPA as watering down RIPA. What IPA 2016 did was bake in clearer and arguably stronger protections on the use of intrusive powers by government and authority. It did this because the European Court of Justice struck down DRIPA - a piece of legislation aligned to RIPA - as not compliant with the rights and freedoms of individuals as, for example, set out in the EDHR. Now that we're out from under the yoke of the ECJ, we need these routes to domestic challenge even more than ever.

It remains to be seen whether the DWP benefit fraud thing will actually see the light of day, but I strongly suspect that if it doesn't, the HRA will feature prominently in any arguments that help to bring it down. Just as I expect that the HRA will feature prominently in any cases challenging government curbs on the right to protest, or police action in breaking up peaceful vigils, say.
Sorry are you in favour or against RIPA/IPA? Because IPA was known as the 'snoopers charter', and rather than give protections to citizens, it gives the state greater powers of surveillance. Despite the HRA being part of UK law since the early 00s, we have seen more and more restrictions on our freedoms, of speech, of protest, and of course greater powers of the state to snoop on us. Some of that is a response to technological changes, and the rise of Islamist terrorism in Europe and the UK. There is so much more that can be said about these issues, we all want freedom for ourselves, but perhaps not for certain others, how do we target those who are a danger to our society without limiting our own freedoms? I think the govt. of the day is usually able to erode our freedoms, because of the lack of interest among the wider pubic, it is only small political groups who can ever be arsed to get out on a Saturday afternoon to shout and wave banners.
 
.

Sorry are you in favour or against RIPA/IPA? Because IPA was known as the 'snoopers charter', and rather than give protections to citizens, it gives the state greater powers of surveillance.
I think you have it the wrong way around. The state will take these powers for itself, because it can, and because there is some need for them in the interests of national and public security. Legislation like RIPA and especially IPA, are intended to set limits and controls to those powers the state exerts. Those limits are easier to justify, and set out, if you have clear human rights legislation to back them up.
 
I heard it on the radio last night. It was so excruciating that I had to switch off. A different level of ineptitude.
 
I heard it on the radio last night. It was so excruciating that I had to switch off. A different level of ineptitude.
It’s not the first time either. She has displayed an ignorance of her own brief more than once. For example, not knowing how C4 is funded. Amazing
 
It’s not the first time either. She has displayed an ignorance of her own brief more than once. For example, not knowing how C4 is funded. Amazing
I think her singular role is to keep the flies off of Johnson through the use of eye catching idiocy. ‘Give her the Culture job, she can wave from over there and can’t do too much damage, it’s only culture after all’. Patel’s job is altogether more sinister- it’s a rallying point for sadism, sadism against scapegoats that can’t fight back.
 
I think her singular role is to keep the flies off of Johnson through the use of eye catching idiocy. ‘Give her the Culture job, she can wave from over there and can’t do too much damage, it’s only culture after all’. Patel’s job is altogether more sinister- it’s a rallying point for sadism, sadism against scapegoats that can’t fight back.
It seems to me that there is a certain maliciousness to cabinet appointments that seem to be designed to wreck the institutions to which they are appointed. We have Home Secretaries attacking human rights, Education secretaries attacking Education, Environment secretaries driving us to a climate crisis, Health secretaries attacking health and Culture Secretaries who wouldn’t recognise Culture if it bit them on the arse.

We live in an environment where everything and anything that requires government spending is under ideological attack. How did we get here?
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that there is a certain maliciousness to cabinet appointments that seem to be designed to wreck the institutions to which they are appointed. We have Home Secretaries attacking human right, Education secretaries attacking Education, Environment secretaries driving us to a climate crisis, Health a secretaries attacking health and Culture Secretaries who wouldn’t recognise Culture if it bit them on the arse.

We live in an environment where everything and anything that requires government spending is under ideological attack. How did we get here?
Absolutely this.
 
The Rt.Hon. Arse-Pincher spends time writing about it when he’s not necking it and ending up with his hands full as a consequence:

zxiN7uU.jpg

The latter seems to have been prophetic.
 
It seems to me that there is a certain maliciousness to cabinet appointments that seem to be designed to wreck the institutions to which they are appointed. We have Home Secretaries attacking human rights, Education secretaries attacking Education, Environment secretaries driving us to a climate crisis, Health secretaries attacking health and Culture Secretaries who wouldn’t recognise Culture if it bit them on the arse.

We live in an environment where everything and anything that requires government spending is under ideological attack. How did we get here?
How did we get here? People voted for it and did so more than once.
 
How did we get here? People voted for it and did so more than once.
Did they vote for what we're getting now? Did they anticipate it? It wasn't what the Conservative manifesto promised, nor what the party leader offered before the election.
And, to reopen that old can of worms, how many voted not for the Con men and women, but against the demon (according to the press) offered by the other major party?
 


advertisement


Back
Top