David Cameron - Human Rights Act

Hi Kirsteenie, although I do believe there should be some form of human rights it has gone crazy.............a google search "human rights gone mad" will give you hours upon hours of reading. And actually asking yourself while doing this "is this for real" so although I cant stand cameron and what he stands for I kinda have to agree with him to a certain extent

Scottish Human rights would surely be decided in Scotland then?
Need more information on that one, good discussion to be had here.

Scotland is separate legally, to bin the Human Rights Act would have to be Holyrood's decision. It's been joked that in future, we might have political refugees coming over the border from England ^^

However, this article would seem to contradict that claim: www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/letters/human-rights-at-risk-in-scotland-too-1-3561117#

Either way, it's certainly pre-occuppying that it should even be talked about.

cazzie, if you say the Act has some impracticalities I believe you, but what I've seen so far is that the only justification given for its scrapping, is to do with "sovereignty" - Westminster sovereignty, that is. I've yet to see a detailed argument with examples, rather I see neo-liberal conservative groups trying to get rid of what they see as "bureaucracy" that isn't under their control and restricts their ability to control people and make money...

The fact that it's Human Rights they're talking about doesn't affect them, I think the Tories have given ample proof by now that they resent the general population. Whoever trusts such sociopaths to draft a Bill of Rights is dangerously naïve.

As far as im aware the HR law covers many aspects including employment law. A lot of people, including those with protected characteristics have won cases through the ECHR. Thus setting case law. Cameron has always hated this as it gives the Unions and workers too many rights in his eyes. He would like to see these rights eradicated or seriously diluted. In my capacity as ....... (not allowed to say) I have used case law. I am not a lawyer.

What you take offence at or not is your prerogative, cazzie. My comment wasn't meant to cause offence at any rate. But I do stand by it: by default, any Party proposing to replace existing Human Rights legislation with a supreme, national Bill of Rights, should be questioned extensively on its motives, but it's even more pre-occuppying when a Party such as the Tories proposes this kind of measure.
It is dangerous to trust any alternatives the Conservatives have to offer, because that Party in particular has an abysmal record pertaining to citizens' individual rights, and this idea of a new Bill of Rights - which, seeing the likely composition of the next UK government, would largely be drafted and approved by Tories, UKIP and neoliberal Labour - seems to me very clearly ideologically motivated, and I don't see any good coming of it.
I don't know you personally, so I woudn't claim to know whether you are a naïve person, and I don't want you to feel demeaned or insulted - that's not my aim at all. I understood your post as signifying that you agreed with the idea of Westminster deciding which Human Rights legislation the UK adheres to, and I doubt I'm alone here in having very deep suspicions about that project...