Theresa May wants HRA scrapped

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#3
Home Secy wants the HRA repealed and Lib Dems say it is here to stay.

Right, we now have the extremes - what is the 'middle road' that both sides will sign up to.

Hopefully something is done to bring the HRA back to protecting the public and not those who wish to do harm.
 
#5
Pandering to Daily Mail! How can treating people like human beings, even if they do not, be a bad thing?
 
#6
Signing up to the HRA is a condition of EU membership. Out of one, out of the other. See other thread about leaving the EU.
She also said she would like to opt out of the HRA not that we will. I'm sure many of us would like to opt out of parts of it but, unless we leave the EU, we can't. And she knows it.
 
#7
HRA will not be scrapped, bank on it.

FAR too many lawyers (note how many Pols are legal eagles these days), make far too much money from it.
 
#8
Pandering to Daily Mail! How can treating people like human beings, even if they do not, be a bad thing?
Clearly, it would be replaced with a Bill of Rights.
 
#10
I don't think the HRA needs scrapping or amending, just applied with a bit of common dog. If it was good enough for Churchill it ought to be good enough for ARRSE.
 
#11
Get rid of it, If they don't then they should introduce a Human Resposibilities act, a breach of which will preclude the offender from protection from certain parts of the Human Rights act.
 
#12
I wonder how I survived all those years before the HRA was introduced without any human rights. But if I must have some then it would be nice if it was implemented by my own people not the faceless halfwits from Europe.
 
#14
I don't think the HRA needs scrapping or amending, just applied with a bit of common dog. If it was good enough for Churchill it ought to be good enough for ARRSE.
An understanding that naughty people SHOULD have certain rights broken would be a start... ie criminals who only remember they should have a family life after being sent down.
 
#15
There is limited use in repealing it if you don't also withdraw from the ECHR.

As others have said why have a bill of rights? There was perfectly good legislation place before HRA. I agree with those who have said it won't be withdrawn or amended.
 
#16
It's not a pick and mix.
Actually that's exactly what it is at present. Most of the rights are 'qualified' rather than 'absolute' - i.e. it is up to a judge to determine when they are more important than other priorities.
 

Trans-sane

LE
Book Reviewer
#19
I don't think the HRA needs scrapping or amending, just applied with a bit of common dog. If it was good enough for Churchill it ought to be good enough for ARRSE.
Maybe redraft it so its a little less loose and as such a playgorund for sharp QC types. But I agree entirely with your opinion. Apply common sense or apply legislation that restricts some of the former precedents maybe...
 
#20
I'll admit I don't know the ins and outs of the HRA, I only have my opinion on these things.

But that opinion is that in any decent civilised society there has to be a balance between human rights and human responsibility.
People cannot have human rights in their society unless they are willing to accept that they have a responsibility to uphold the laws and standards of that society. To balance that out there has to be the human rights granted as a reward for upholding their half of the bargain.

Hypothetical example:
A father commits a crime and is sent to a prison some distance away from his family and home. He invokes the HRA claiming that it is his human right to have visits from his family and this is being broken unless he is moved either to a prison nearer family or his sentence reduced. He is also quite likely to claim compensation for the distress caused.
While it could be argued that people do have a human right to spending time with family it could also be said that perhaps if he had recognised his own human responsibility to obey the law then he would not have had that human right removed. Therefore it was by his own choice when committing a crime that caused him to lose his rights.

This can also be applied to illegal immigrants claiming a human right to stay in a country they have broken the law in for various reason such as family life or their own safety if returned to their own country. This should have been taken into consideration when they decided to commit a crime.

Students who wreak havoc in the classroom, sabotaging their fellow students educational chances who then claim a 'human right' to an education if they are excluded from school for the greater benefit of the other students. They should have considered their desire for education before they acted like thugs and hooligans in school.

This is only my opinion, those better educated would probably be able to rip it into little shreds but it is my opinion and I will stick by it.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Auld-Yin The NAAFI Bar 9
Bravo_Bravo The Intelligence Cell 4
jarrod248 The NAAFI Bar 155

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top