[Archived] Humans Right Act 1998

[Blue n White Rover]

Just wondered if anyone can help me on how the Humans Rights Act 1998 has affected English Law. I've been reading through books and many articles, however, struggling to find any.

Cheers

[1864roverite]

Its the biggest load of crap ever written.

In one foul swoop, this idiotic government has handed rights to criminals, immigration offenders, asylum seekers, terrorists and the like whilst at the same time taken everything away from the citizens who actually live their lives in peace and harmony.

[stuwilky]

Its not the HRA that gives problems in most cases; The HRA is beneficial to "everyone". The difficulties are caused by the European Court of Human Rights who appear to have a particularly bizarre view on some cases.

UK cases of note include A and others v The Home Secretary - which led directly to the introduction of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.

It is interesting that there have only been about a dozen occasions where UK law has been at odds with the HRA - and each times the government has introduced new legislation to ensure that UK law does not "suffer".

The Chahal case is worth looking at as well - think it was 95 or 96, so predating the HRA (I cant remember the significance of that one at the moment though!)

[Rovermatt]

Its the biggest load of crap ever written.

In one foul swoop, this idiotic government has handed rights to criminals, immigration offenders, asylum seekers, terrorists and the like whilst at the same time taken everything away from the citizens who actually live their lives in peace and harmony.

Nonsense. While it's certainly true that many undesirables have benefited from the HRA 98, it is fantasy - propagated by people who don't know better - to claim that innocent citizens have had their rights taken away. Catch yourself on.

[tony gale's mic]

Its the biggest load of crap ever written.

In one foul swoop, this idiotic government has handed rights to criminals, immigration offenders, asylum seekers, terrorists and the like whilst at the same time taken everything away from the citizens who actually live their lives in peace and harmony.

:lol: Hello Littlejohn.

Nothing like an extreme, one sided myopic view is there?

I agree it's had several faults and needs to be implemented rather differently to what has happened so far. But the basic principles behind the Act are good ones.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

:lol: Hello Littlejohn.

Nothing like an extreme, one sided myopic view is there?

I agree it's had several faults and needs to be implemented rather differently to what has happened so far. But the basic principles behind the Act are good ones.

Why do you have to have an opinion on absolutely everything?

As for having a myopic stance; good grief have you tried looking in the mirror? I don’t know you; however you are utterly predictable for your hatred of any opinion right of centre.

One would hope that you curtail your moral crusade against every opinion opposite to your own when you become a doctor.

[tony gale's mic]

Why do you have to have an opinion on absolutely everything?

As for having a myopic stance; good grief have you tried looking in the mirror? I don’t know you; however you are utterly predictable for your hatred of any opinion right of centre.

One would hope that you curtail your moral crusade against every opinion opposite to your own when you become a doctor.

:lol: You are a little obsessed with my future profession, it's not the first time you've brought it up is it? I'd say in this respect though, one would hope that I do respect the issues mentioned in the Act you so despise whilst conducting my future practice.

It isn't a moral crusade, but your post was utterly laughable. I'm by no means far left, in fact I've engaged in discussions with various people on why I'm opposed to communism, why I think the free market can be a good thing etc.

Now let's see the articles of the act:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/946400.stm

Exactly which part of this legislation is "a load of crap"? I'd say it's all based on sound principles, just the way it's been implemented at times hasn't been satisfactory. That is a reasoned view, looking at both sides of the argument.

Yours is the usual kind of drivel I'd expect from your ilk.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

:lol: You are a little obsessed with my future profession, it's not the first time you've brought it up is it? I'd say in this respect though, one would hope that I do respect the issues mentioned in the Act you so despise whilst conducting my future practice.

It isn't a moral crusade, but your post was utterly laughable. I'm by no means far left, in fact I've engaged in discussions with various people on why I'm opposed to communism, why I think the free market can be a good thing etc.

Now let's see the articles of the act:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/946400.stm

Exactly which part of this legislation is "a load of crap"? I'd say it's all based on sound principles, just the way it's been implemented at times hasn't been satisfactory. That is a reasoned view, looking at both sides of the argument.

Yours is the usual kind of drivel I'd expect from your ilk.

My ILK; my you are a pompous little gobshite. You don’t have a clue what I do; my background – simply because I don’t feel compelled to broadcast it unlike yourself.

I bring up your TRAINEE profession as it often comes across that you have an extremely over- inflated opinion of yourself, due to your profession.

Furthermore, you don’t put direct quotation marks around text which I haven’t quoted. It is both incorrect and misleading.

[stuwilky]

Ahh yes, get the insults out if you want to reaffirm your views.

[tony gale's mic]

My ILK; my you are a pompous little gobshite. You don’t have a clue what I do; my background – simply because I don’t feel compelled to broadcast it unlike yourself.

I bring up your TRAINEE profession as it often comes across that you have an extremely over- inflated opinion of yourself, due to your profession.

Furthermore, you don’t put direct quotation marks around text which I haven’t quoted. It is both incorrect and misleading.

You're so angry! Bless.

If I repeatedly brought up my future profession in arguments, your point about me might carry a little weight. But I don't. I think I've mentioned it all of two times by my own accord on here (once in a thread which specifically asked what we did), and the rest of the times it's been brought up by others. Mostly by you.

If you want to cite times when I've "broadcast" my future profession on here repeatedly, then feel free. The search function is up and running you know! But I suspect that might be a somewhat fruitless search. In future you might want to refrain from making such baseless remarks. They'll just end up making you look (even more) stupid.

When I said "ilk" I wasn't making any inferences to your background or job, so I do find it a little bizzare that you might take that from it. I was referring to you as a group of posters/people with the same reactionary attitudes to just about anything. There's people of your sort from all sorts of backgrounds.

You referred to the Human Rights act as "the biggest load of crap" ever written. I quoted "a load of crap". Obviously that extra "a" in there made ALL the difference as to what you actually meant.

Now how's about you start debating the actual points I've made and resist from making yourself look so foolish? I'm saying this for your own good as well as the good of this thread.

Thanks.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

You're so angry! Bless.

You referred to the Human Rights act as "the biggest load of crap" ever written. I quoted "a load of crap". Obviously that extra "a" in there made ALL the difference as to what you actually meant.

Now how's about you start debating the actual points I've made and resist from making yourself so foolish? I'm saying this for your own good as well as the good of this thread.

Thanks.

You are making yourself look very stupid. It is obvious that you can’t read- which when mixed with having an extremely high opinion of yourself is not a particularly good mix. To reiterate ( and give you a clue) you can’t put quotation marks around text that hasn’t come from me.

As for the Human Rights act; as a believer in an anarchical neo-realist global political system, the act takes away the fundamental right of an independent nation state to make its own decisions. One of the most basic principles of nationhood . I agree that if the Act could be vetoed- on say deporting known terrorists; then yes a watered down act may work.

The Human rights act in its current state gives credence to the belief that we are sleep-walking into a federalised European government. An ideal which I am utterly opposed to.

[stuwilky]

As for the Human Rights act; as a believer in an anarchical neo-realist global political system, the act takes away the fundamental right of an independent nation state to make its own decisions.

The Human Rights Act 1998 is a piece of UK legislation.

Now, our entry into the EU...... that does what you suggest.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

The Human Rights Act 1998 is a piece of UK legislation.

Now, our entry into the EU...... that does what you suggest.

Maybe so; however

Human Rights Act

Interpretation of Convention rights .(1)

A court or tribunal determining a question which has arisen in connection with a Convention right must take into account any— .

(a)

judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights, .

opinion of the Commission given in a report adopted under Article 31 of the Convention, .

©

decision of the Commission in connection with Article 26 or 27(2) of the Convention, or .

(d)

decision of the Committee of Ministers taken under Article 46 of the Convention,

[tony gale's mic]

You are making yourself look very stupid. It is obvious that you can’t read- which when mixed with having an extremely high opinion of yourself is not a particularly good mix. To reiterate ( and give you a clue) you can’t put quotation marks around text that hasn’t come from me.

As for the Human Rights act; as a believer in an anarchical neo-realist global political system, the act takes away the fundamental right of an independent nation state to make its own decisions. One of the most basic principles of nationhood . I agree that if the Act could be vetoed- on say deporting known terrorists; then yes a watered down act may work.

The Human rights act in its current state gives credence to the belief that we are sleep-walking into a federalised European government. An ideal which I am utterly opposed to.

I'll give you that one. My brain does find it hard to differentiate between identical opinions sometimes...but it isn't particularly misleading as to your actual thoughts I'd imagine? The rest of my post still stands.

My understanding of the act was that, in principle, it meant that trials for human rights abuses wouldn't have to go to the European courts. It was costing a great deal of time, effort and money to take these cases to Strasbourg. Surely in that respect it gave us more independence? Yes it bound us to the convention, but almost all of that convention is things which any country should have entrenched within their legislation.

[stuwilky]

Maybe so; however

Interpretation of Convention rights .(1)

A court or tribunal determining a question which has arisen in connection with a Convention right must take into account any— .

(a)

judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights, .

opinion of the Commission given in a report adopted under Article 31 of the Convention, .

©

decision of the Commission in connection with Article 26 or 27(2) of the Convention, or .

(d)

decision of the Committee of Ministers taken under Article 46 of the Convention,

Exactly, so it is the EU system that does what you said, not the Human Rights Act 1998. Which is UK primary legislation.

[tony gale's mic]

Maybe so; however

Interpretation of Convention rights .(1)

A court or tribunal determining a question which has arisen in connection with a Convention right must take into account any— .

(a)

judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights, .

opinion of the Commission given in a report adopted under Article 31 of the Convention, .

©

decision of the Commission in connection with Article 26 or 27(2) of the Convention, or .

(d)

decision of the Committee of Ministers taken under Article 46 of the Convention,

Fixed it for you.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Exactly, so it is the EU system that does what you said, not the Human Rights Act 1998. Which is UK primary legislation.

Exactly- so in its current state it is unworkable. A good parallel would be the relationship between the House of Commons and Lords before the Parliament act’s of 1911/49.

The Act either needs to have a veto clause over the European Human Rights court- or it needs ripping up.

[stuwilky]

Exactly- so in its current state it is unworkable. A good parallel would be the relationship between the House of Commons and Lords before the Parliament act’s of 1911/49.

The Act either needs to have a veto clause over the European Human Rights court- or it needs ripping up.

What is contained within the HRA that we would want to veto?

[Bazzanotsogreat]

What is contained within the HRA that we would want to veto?

The ability to Veto the ‘advisory decision; of the European Court of Human Rights which the act is implicitly tied into.

[tony gale's mic]

As far as I can tell the Act merely states we must "take into account" any judgement, saying that we have to adhere to it would be another matter entirely.

Like I said, not much wrong with the Act itself, but rather the way it's been used sometimes has been a bit wide of the mark.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

As far as I can tell the Act merely states we must "take into account" any judgement, saying that we have to adhere to it would be another matter entirely.

Like I said, not much wrong with the Act itself, but rather the way it's been used sometimes has been a bit wide of the mark.

But in reality the ‘advise’ of the HR Court is not advice, it is a decision.

[blue phil]

Ahh yes, get the insults out if you want to reaffirm your views.

I think a cursory look at this thread will reveal that the insults began at 17:27 Feb 21st .

The quality of debate on this messageboard is becoming truly pitiful . The Cambridge Student Debating Society have a lot to answer for ......

[stuwilky]

But in reality the ‘advise’ of the HR Court is not advice, it is a decision.

In which cases?

I think a cursory look at this thread will reveal that the insults began at 17:27 Feb 21st .

I agree calling someone "littlejohn" is very insulting - although I suspect others would find it a compliment!

[tony gale's mic]

I think a cursory look at this thread will reveal that the insults began at 17:27 Feb 21st .

The quality of debate on this messageboard is becoming truly pitiful . The Cambridge Student Debating Society have a lot to answer for ......

I have never been a member of that particular society, just competed in the national finals of one of their competitions about 7 years ago. As I've pointed out to you on the various times you've brought it up.

I would say comparing someone to an extremely well paid and popular columnist is only an insult if you deem it to be one. Personally I would if someone called me it, since my views differ from his so greatly. However, I'd imagine the large number of people who subscribe to his views wouldn't see it as an insult at all, they'd probably see it as a compliment.

Nice try phil, but you're talking nonsense again. If you can track down a post of mine where it's composed more of insults than actual solid points, then as I said before feel free. The search function is your friend. But I suspect you'll find nothing.

[blue phil]

Maybe it's only an insult when Littlejohn espouses an ".. extreme, one sided myopic view"

(I presume you mean the columnist by the way and not the revolutionary freedom fighter )

I'll skip on searching through your posts if you don't mind . I think I'd rather watch Mr Littlejohn take a sh!te than subject myself to that particular cultural delight

Well I'll leave you to continue this highbrow debate - I'm off to the pub