NuLabs Legislative Legacy - What would you repeal?

#1
NuLab must hold the record for the amount of new legislation entered onto the UK's statute Book, most of it inspired by Brussels - all of it administratively expensive and of little value to us.

I recall hearing that an incoming Tory government would be reviewing this mountain with the aim of cutting out most of the cr*p.

Assuming that this idea still stands, now that we've got a coalition, what would be your priority for File 13.
 
#4
Equalities Act, if it managed to get past. I'd look at easing the ban on pistols too.

I'd repeal the Human Rights Act too, and alter whatever piece of legislation it is that makes it so hard to move gypsies once they've set up camp somewhere.
 
#5
Being a member of the shooting community I'm going to put forward the Firearms Act 1997 for immediate repeal.

I know this was kicked off by the Tories in a panic but NuLab didn't have the moral courage to bin it on the grounds that it was pointless and unjust, instead they ground the shooters' noses into the dirt by banning .22s as well.

The Firearms Act 1997 is an outstanding example of panicky, knee-jerk idiocy that has signally failed to cut gun crime and "get guns off the street"; instead all it did was to deprive 57,000 well-vetted, legal gun owners of their property for less than its true worth.

In the short term, at the very least, the shooting community should be allowed handguns suitable for Olympic disciplines as soon as possible to allow our Olympic shooters time to prepare properly and encourage future generations of Olympic shooters. The current so-called "special provisions" for practice in the UK were a joke, so loaded with restrictions that it made more sense to continue going to Switzerland.

What would I propose instead?

Something a lot cheaper and more appropriate/fit for purpose:-

Scrap the entire Firearms Act and replace it with a 'Fit Person Certificate', whereby the applicant undergoes vetting up to Ordinary Vetting level, allowing him/her to hold any category of firearm that was legal prior to 1988. This would best be administered by a Firearms Administration Organisation, outside of the control of ACPO and its anti-shooting bias, thus allowing the police to concentrate on real firearms crime as opposed to 'technical crimes', ie. caused by arbitrary and illogical application of FA1997 by the police!
 
#6
EHRA. Blair said introducing the Scum's Charter was one of his proudest moments in politics - 'Nuff Said!
 
#8
Dismantling the stasi lite surveillance culture would be nice, fixed speed cameras only, CCTV to be scaled down to reasonable levels, Terrorism act to be scrapped, or at least the abuse of the Terrorism act by local councils and police.
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#9
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. Unless I'm missing some glaring reason that the council should be able to view my internet activities.
 
#10
Werewolf said:
EHRA. Blair said introducing the Scum's Charter was one of his proudest moments in politics - 'Nuff Said!
Didn't his missus tell him to push this?

Incidentally has Harriet Harperson's Equality Bill hit the rails too?

Apart from that ....every bit of legislation since 1920 should be binned! :twisted:
 
#11
shagnasty said:
Werewolf said:
EHRA. Blair said introducing the Scum's Charter was one of his proudest moments in politics - 'Nuff Said!
Didn't his missus tell him to push this?

Incidentally has Harriet Harperson's Equality Bill hit the rails too?

Apart from that ....every bit of legislation since 1920 should be binned! :twisted:
My bold: you mean this one?

http://www.equalities.gov.uk/equality_act_2010.aspx
 
#12
Sixty said:
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. Unless I'm missing some glaring reason that the council should be able to view my internet activities.
I'd forgot that one, that's another nasty example of state snooping.
 
#13
Every piece of legislation that has been introduced by Statutory Instrument.

If the proposed legislation is that good it can go through the Commons and be scrutinised by the Lords.
 
#15
beemer007 said:
shagnasty said:
Werewolf said:
EHRA. Blair said introducing the Scum's Charter was one of his proudest moments in politics - 'Nuff Said!
Didn't his missus tell him to push this?

Incidentally has Harriet Harperson's Equality Bill hit the rails too?

Apart from that ....every bit of legislation since 1920 should be binned! :twisted:
My bold: you mean this one?

http://www.equalities.gov.uk/equality_act_2010.aspx

Oh! Bugger! ...and I meant 1918 not 1920...that's when they gave Wimmin the vote I believe! :twisted:
 
#16
Arankay said:
Ah! The Human Rights Act 1998, think you're mixing up your HRA's and your ECHR's!

You are right, it should be the first one to go.
Including the human rights of armed forces personnel, or is your position that they have no such rights? Presumably you disagree with Churchill on human rights?
 
#17
hackle said:
Arankay said:
Ah! The Human Rights Act 1998, think you're mixing up your HRA's and your ECHR's!

You are right, it should be the first one to go.
Including the human rights of armed forces personnel, or is your position that they have no such rights? Presumably you disagree with Churchill on human rights?
No wonder you call yourself Hackle. Are you a politician perhaps? Don't answer the question.....just get people's back up by posing another irrevelant question. Nothing personal...just an observation.

The human rights act is a get out clause for all and sundry, mainly those who wouldn't know a human right from a cows arse.
 
#18
hackle said:
Arankay said:
Ah! The Human Rights Act 1998, think you're mixing up your HRA's and your ECHR's!

You are right, it should be the first one to go.
Including the human rights of armed forces personnel, or is your position that they have no such rights? Presumably you disagree with Churchill on human rights?
Who mentioned armed forces personnel, let alone a position on their rights?

The ECHR was conceived so as the evils of the Nazis would never again occur in Europe, on that me Sir Winston Churchill agree.

The HRA 1998 had a completely different agenda, driven by people without the moral compass of Churchill.
 
#20
I see that there are quite a few (and not a few Conservative MPs!) who have absolutely no idea whatsoever how the Human Rights Act 1998 actually works. What is often the case is that the rights incorporated under section 1 of the Act are prayed in aid of in complete ignorance that the court has no power other than to make a declaration of incompatibility with Human Rights and no power whatsoever to disapply the law found in confict. Such judicial declarations are as rare as an honest MP and legislative change in order to give effect to such declarations are even rarer.

Put simply, If Parliament enacted a statutory provision which openly violated the right to life under Article 2, the higher courts, including the Supreme Court has absolutely no power to disapply its applicaton by someone praying in aid of that Article under section 1 of the 1998 Act, all the court is able to do is to say that the provision is incompatible with the defendant's rights and allow the provision to operate to deprive him of them (ie, kill him!) and leave it to Parliament to amend the provision if it chooses to do so, which it rarely ever is!

The distorted and hostile public attitude to the Human Rights Act is based upon what the media generate which is often no more than what is prayed in aid of rather than what is actually protected in fact, and what is used as an excuse for inaction rather than what actually exists.

If anything, the Act needs to be strenghthened rather than abolished!

The Human Rights Act is a triumph of form over substance since it creates the illusion that your rights are actually protected! You will find that a matter of practical reality, that if you look closely enough, the Act does no such thing!
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MoD_RSS MoD News 1

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads