"Conservatives would abolish the Human Rights Act"

Taken off the Conservative Party website.

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=138115

 

The man is certainly no clever clogs. All his attempts at endearing his party to the electorate has been amatuerish and shallow.

The answer is not to abolish the HRA but to introduce specific laws to deal with the instances where the application of the HRA might lead to 'injustice' etc.

What a cnut.

 

About time somebody did, provided the European Soviet Union lets it happen!

 

They won't, therefore Camerons UK would have to leave the EU

 

I think you'll find he said '(we) ought to abolish the HRA'.

The 'ought' ought to give him sufficient wriggle room to do nothing, as predicted....

 

No chance of this happening, that would take leadership

 

To leave the corrupt, expensive, unelected, unaccountable European Soviet Union would be the best, very best, thing to happen to GB since May 1979 when Mrs. Thatcher was elected and dragged this country back from the abyss!

 

What a day that'll be. If he coupled it with a new public Holiday (as being threatened) it will taste all the more sweeter. Not for you though Sven. The possibility of a Republic and tree hugging for all would be right out the window.

 

Careful there fella! You'll be accused of all sorts of reactionary thinking!

 

Listened to a bit of this on Radio 2 todey and it would seem that it is not the HRA that is the problem (which we can change if we want) nor the European Convention on HR but the European Directive which we cannot change unilterally.

Better said here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/mainframe.shtml?http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio2_aod.shtml?radio2/r2_vine_tue

go to about 19mins in and the lawer who is a lawyer for the Immigration types states it quite clearly.

So yet again a vote grabbing gob off by another politition.

BTW whilst I empathise with the Lawrence family the guy was 5/6 when he got here and this is not the correct case on which to highlight the flaws. I seem to recall two cases recently where both were adults when granted assylum, one from Nigeria (murderer?) and another one from Egypt (terrorist) who cannot be sent home due to this.

 

What difference would it make?

All it would mean is that Human Rights issues could not be addressed in the domestic courts and that legislation would not require a declaration of compatability at the time the proposals for the legislation are made.

The Human Rights would still exist - its just that the cases would need to be heard in Strasbourg, just like they were in between 1952 and 2000.

It is more bluster than anything else - the tories pandering to the readers of "The Sun" in an attempt to win more votes.

Like a previous poster said - to reshape the UK constitution would take real leadership.

 

Last time I looked the British didn't have a constitution, and never looked like needing one. God forbid we get one now, doubtless it will be some shadow of the US version, one which ensures our continued adherence to the European Soviet Union and ignores all the good US bits about the rights of the indigenous population.

 

Look again.

You won't find a document called "The British Constitution" though.

 

Oh stop being picky, you know what I meant.

 

The entire point of one is that it's there when you need it. It's a bit late to put one together when we end up with an authoratarian fascist state is all prodding us into line.