Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

bingobob777

Human Rights Act

Recommended Posts

Can we and should we withdraw from it?

Have the govt withdrawn themselves?

Article 8: Right to privacy

(1) Everyone has the right for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can we and should we withdraw from it?

Have the govt withdrawn themselves?

Article 8: Right to privacy

(1) Everyone has the right for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

Well it has made Cherie and the rest of the ZaNu lawyer brigade rich already so maybe they have lost interest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On balance I think the Human Rights Act is a good thing and we should not withdraw from it. I know it sometimes leads to perverse decisions but then so do our domestic laws and those of other countries too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can we and should we withdraw from it?

Have the govt withdrawn themselves?

Article 8: Right to privacy

(1) Everyone has the right for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

(2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Para 2 means that this is a qualified right. Quoting para 1 on its own is likely to mislead people into thinking that they have an unqualified right to privacy under ECHR as enacted in HRA. Maybe you did it to stimulate debate, but I would rather that the debate was based on a correct understanding of the law as it stands.

Those interested in the difference between a qualified and unqualified right should compare with Article 3 which simply states:

No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More talked about than real, I suspect. How many HRA cases have been brought? Finding a solicitor who would do it on Legal Aid is your first problem, then getting Legal Services Commission funding is next.

But having it on the Statute Book doesn't hurt and the Daily Mail gets to use it for imaginary stories which frighten its readers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More talked about than real, I suspect. How many HRA cases have been brought? Finding a solicitor who would do it on Legal Aid is your first problem, then getting Legal Services Commission funding is next.

But having it on the Statute Book doesn't hurt and the Daily Mail gets to use it for imaginary stories which frighten its readers.

More cases than you might think, obviously.

The affect of the HRA has changed most institutions' way of addressing a wide number of issues.

For example, a few years back Customs and Excise Officers were secretly observing two Chinese men who owned a large and very successful restaurant in London.

Undoubedly, they were "At it": usual scams, short-declaring cash revenus through the tills and buying supplies from a wholesaler for cash to obscure the realities etc.

So the Customs guys nicked 'em for VAT fraud.

Trouble was since it was a serious and thus criminal matter they had to caution the accuseds and charge them and arrest them.

Problem was they were able to prove their comprehension of spoken and written English was very poor. And thus had not been properly cautioned: since they were able, successfully, to claim they failed to comprehend the caution.

Since that time, the whole way in which HMRC carry out observations and monitoring has had to change: due to HRA.

Can Britain withdraw from EHR legislation?

No: since EU law is paramount and after a new law has been passed by Europe, members states have a finite time to incorporate aligned law onto their own statue books.

To try and cancel HRA on a unilateral basis would cause Britain to be fined vast penalties: which would continue and increase for as long as the breach remained extant.

Thanks Heath: that's another fine mess you've gotten me into!

LandH.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On balance I think the Human Rights Act is a good thing and we should not withdraw from it. I know it sometimes leads to perverse decisions but then so do our domestic laws and those of other countries too.

I tend to agree. I used to be of the opinion that Human Rights laws like this usually go too far but, when you actually look at some of the cases in which they feature - and actually read the full judgments, not just what the media tells you - it's hard to disagree with what they do and how they are applied and, it becomes clear that very few of these judgments are actually perverse.

Take the Max Mosely prostitution/domination thing. The tabloids and their bottom feeding readers seem to think that they have a right to freely publish and read everything about everyone whenever they feel like it. Hence, they decided that MM's private life was fair game. When you look at the judgment you can't really sensibly disagree with it. The fact that he is a person of note doesn't mean that he is is somehow exempt from the provisions of the Human Rights Act. His private life is his private life and has sod all to do with his high profile work life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that he is a person of note doesn't mean that he is is somehow exempt from the provisions of the Human Rights Act. His private life is his private life and has sod all to do with his high profile work life.

I think a case can be made where if a person of note is acting hypocritically or criminally, then public interest should trump a right to privacy.

For example, neo-con preacher Ted Haggard regularly preached about the evils of homosexuality in public while sucking off young men in his private life.

But then I also think that if someone blogs anonymously on the internet their privacy should be protected to a far higher degree then it is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Para 2 means that this is a qualified right. Quoting para 1 on its own is likely to mislead people into thinking that they have an unqualified right to privacy under ECHR as enacted in HRA. Maybe you did it to stimulate debate, but I would rather that the debate was based on a correct understanding of the law as it stands.

Those interested in the difference between a qualified and unqualified right should compare with Article 3 which simply states:

No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

This is true but nor does that fact that it is a qualified right mean that it can be thrown to one side for any reason that sounds like you might get it to fit within one of the exemptions. The exemption has to be justified by being necessary in order to meet the stated exemptions, as opposed to being merely advantageous or desirable. This is a very high hurdle to get over and, although it means there is no unqualified right to privacy, it's not far off it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think a case can be made where if a person of note is acting hypocritically or criminally, then public interest should trump a right to privacy.

I don't think hypocrisy is even remotely equivalent or comparable to criminality (unless the hypocrisy is itself of a criminal nature of course...). Its certainly an ethical failing on the part of the person doing it but I don't think it should be policed as such. In much the same way adultery shouldn't be a criminal offence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think hypocrisy is even remotely equivalent or comparable to criminality (unless the hypocrisy is itself of a criminal nature of course...). Its certainly an ethical failing on the part of the person doing it but I don't think it should be policed as such. In much the same way adultery shouldn't be a criminal offence.

Sorry, didn't mean to try and turn hypocrisy into a criminal act, but if 'people of note' are making statements (as they do) about subjects they have influence on the masses. If they are being hypocritical or lying through their teeth about it I think a society functions better when that behaviour is exposed instead of covered up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, didn't mean to try and turn hypocrisy into a criminal act, but if 'people of note' are making statements (as they do) about subjects they have influence on the masses. If they are being hypocritical or lying through their teeth about it I think a society functions better when that behaviour is exposed instead of covered up.

I know what you mean but I'm not wild about the implication that we enshrine in law the concept that who is saying something matters as much as what they are saying. Ted Haggard's pronouncements were hateful and bigoted, the he was caught knocking back crystal meth with a rent boy doesn't change that either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think a case can be made where if a person of note is acting hypocritically or criminally, then public interest should trump a right to privacy.

For example, neo-con preacher Ted Haggard regularly preached about the evils of homosexuality in public while sucking off young men in his private life.

But then I also think that if someone blogs anonymously on the internet their privacy should be protected to a far higher degree then it is now.

It's a balancing act. It's a case of balancing one persons right to publish something against the others right to keep things private. The judge in the Mosely case said (I think) that his right to privacy might have been outweighed by a right to publish had the circs been different. Had he been a politician or churcy type who had built a reputation on "Family Values" or an anti-prostitution stance, for instance, then it may be the case that he wouldn't not have been to avail himself of the protection of his right to privacy.

Fact is that if someone is doing something which isn't illegal and is genuinely part of their private life then there is probably no reason for it to be published.

Actually, when you think about it, there seems to have been far fewer expose's of celebs private shaggin affairs since, although it's not something I actively look out for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be the point in withdrawing? We would still remain signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which was drawn up largely by British lawyers, and which came into force in 1953.

The effect of the Human Rights Act is to enable British citizens to enforce their rights under the Convention in UK courts without going to Strasbourg - much cheaper and less time consuming.

It has nothing to do with the EU, and is not a criminals' charter as some allege. It was for example thanks to the ECHR that the Closed Shop (Compulsory union membership) was outlawed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AuntJess

I'd like to know why - if some hardened criminal - murderer etc - from another country, comes here, we can't send 'em home' cos it's agin their human rights.

That just means we will attract all the dross from across the globe, who having once got a toe on UK soil, will be allowed to stay and also get funded by the UK taxpayer to argue the toss thru' the courts - ad infinitum! :angry:

That is what I'd like to see revised. This country should not be allowed to be a haven for the dregs of humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to know why - if some hardened criminal - murderer etc - from another country, comes here, we can't send 'em home' cos it's agin their human rights.

That just means we will attract all the dross from across the globe, who having once got a toe on UK soil, will be allowed to stay and also get funded by the UK taxpayer to argue the toss thru' the courts - ad infinitum! :angry:

That is what I'd like to see revised. This country should not be allowed to be a haven for the dregs of humanity.

We can, just not when the sending of them back may jeapardise their rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Criminals who might be sent back to countries where they may be tortured or killed are covered by provisions in international treaties unrelated to the ECHR or HRA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those rights are nullified by that clause of "national security" etc. Basically the state gets to decide who has them.

Indeed.

Examine the RIP Act!

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Criminals who might be sent back to countries where they may be tortured or killed are covered by provisions in international treaties unrelated to the ECHR or HRA.

Problem is the shysters coming in for asylum all claim this crap. They know its an easy scam and then once they get asylum lots go back to visit family etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm against the Human Rights Act on technical grounds rather than moral ones. Essentially I see it as the legal equivalent of a securitised derivative i.e. it's an abstraction that has no relevance practical everyday legal transactions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever I return to the UK via Eurotunnel, which is often, I'm given suspicious glances and inquisitorial looks by UK Imigration Officers: which in itself is a bit of a laugh since I travel regularly backwards and forwards, in the same car, they have Index Plate Recognition and scan my passport and have all the data on a screen in front of their eyes.

Now, when Asylum Seekers enter UK they are, so we are told, subjected to a rigorous and robust investigation checking their credentials and story concernign "Danger of being killed and tortured etc", before being allowed asylum.

Well, OK so far.

However, one fly in the ointment here: the normal way a person's credibility is checked is for the FCO to send an embassy-to-embassy enquiry through ususual diplomatic communication channels.....................

So, we have this geezer with an unpronouncable name claiming if he is sent back then he'll be topped.

And the FCO on behalf of the foreign office really expect their equivalent bureaucratic number is going to revert with such as..........

"You send this *******'s effing ass back here now! Immediately! We're preparing the gallows to use after we've chopped off his arms and legs, run him through with bayonets 100 times, chopped off his willy and stuffed it down his throat!"

Yeah right.............

OK: we'll let him stay then..........

:rolleyes:

What a total load of bo11oxs!

SIS couldn't even get Intel about Iraq right.

And they had numerous assets on the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm against the Human Rights Act on technical grounds rather than moral ones. Essentially I see it as the legal equivalent of a securitised derivative i.e. it's an abstraction that has no relevance practical everyday legal transactions.

So you disprove of the outlawing of the closed shop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AuntJess
Problem is the shysters coming in for asylum all claim this crap. They know its an easy scam and then once they get asylum lots go back to visit family etc.

Self-report has never been an accurate method of acquiring information. My daughter had police checks made whenever she changed teaching jobs.

No one would have given her a job on the basis of replying "No" to the question " Are you a paedophile or otherwise dangerous criminal?" :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   295 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.