Is it right for the UK Gove to defy ECHR

[Mowser]

It would have to be replaced with a British Bill of Rights.

[frank]

So no votes then. Sorry but I found Frank's post a bit ambiguous - thought it said that they'd voted in favour of giving prisoners the vote! It was "MPs vote 234 to 22 to reject ruling by European Court of Human Rights." Hopefully that will be end of!

No, they voted in favour of the motion, which said,

“this House believes that if a crime is serious enough to warrant a term of imprisonment, then the perpetrator must forgo certain civil liberties, including the right to suffrage; and recognises that the right to vote does not aid the rehabilitation of a prisoner and is a privilege that should be exclusively reserved for law-abiding citizens.”

We had human rights before signing up for ECHR, and I'm sure we would again if we left. The motion is not binding anyway, so maybe things will not change.

[markwilding]

As Frank says it was just a motion and isn't binding. First I want to make it clear that I don't agree with this law. but what I don't understand is In other posts some people complain quite rightly about Spanish politicians flouting EU or ECHR laws then saying it's OK for UK ones to do it because it suits their beliefs.
The fact is The UK has signed up to the ECHR so by law we have to adhere to it.
joining the ECHR was in Labour's manifesto in 1997 and they were voted into power it was one of the first things they implimented. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it wasn't done democratically.
And I prefer to know that politicians cannot just do what they want and have to work inside a legal framework.

[El Cid]

joining the ECHR was in Labour's manifesto in 1997 and they were voted into power it was one of the first things they implimented. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it wasn't done democratically.

No, we signed up to the ECHR when it was created in 1950.

The Labour party decided that, as it took so long for cases from UK citizens to go through the European system, that they would enshrine the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights into the UK legal system and they passed the the Human rights act in 1998.

Even if the Act was never created the current situation would still apply.

None of this has anything to do with the EU. Even if we left the EU we would still be bound by the ECHR as are all the 47 members of the Council of Europe.

Sid

[TerryC]

This is a very good article in the Daily Mail today by Mary Ellon Synon an admitted Euro Sceptic.

http://synonblog.dailymail.co.uk/

It would seem we have all been conned once again. This vote according to the article actually means very little in that if the ECHR can't get you one way then the Lisbon Treaty will get you another.

It appears there is no escaping the tentacles of Europe. The British politicians over the years have not been telling us the truth about how far British sovereignty has been handed over to the various European institutions. It would appear the only way to actually stop all this is by Britain leaving the EU, but seeing as how the controlling three parties are in truth Europhiles the British public will never be offered the much called for referendum on continued membership of the EU.

[frank]

The fact is The UK has signed up to the ECHR so by law we have to adhere to it.

Or leave, or try to curb it's powers.

The ECHR was drafted following the atrocities that were seen within the Nazi regime that had spread across a significant section of Europe. It was drafted out of a desire to never again allow such atrocities to take place.

Times have changed radically since then, as Ken Clarke said,"Human rights law tends to be applied to rather unattractive and unpleasant people," so do we blindly accept the rulings of the court which seems hell bent on protecting murderers, terrorists, rapists etc? Do we let the decisions of unelected judges overrule our legally elected government? At what point do we decide enough is enough? I was reading another forum and came across this,this is sort of trash we are defending.

Did anyone see John Hirst on The Daily Politics? They were discussing the fact he'd killed his landlady with an axe, and he was on screen laughing dementedly in the background whilst listening to it.

[markwilding]

joining the ECHR was in Labour's manifesto in 1997 and they were voted into power it was one of the first things they implimented. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it wasn't done democratically.

No, we signed up to the ECHR when it was created in 1950.

The Labour party decided that, as it took so long for cases from UK citizens to go through the European system, that they would enshrine the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights into the UK legal system and they passed the the Human rights act in 1998.

Even if the Act was never created the current situation would still apply.

None of this has anything to do with the EU. Even if we left the EU we would still be bound by the ECHR as are all the 47 members of the Council of Europe.

Sid

Thank you sid. I've pointed out these facts on here many times before exactly as you've written them. I was in a bit of a rush when I wrote my post but my main point was ECHR doesn't impose anything on us because we(The UK) are are part of the law making process of the system. I don't know how many times I've said that the ECHR and the EU are different entities
We could of course leave but politcians would still need work within the law in or out of the system.

[peteroldracer]

Two points: firstly could the reason for Labour rushing to enshrine the Human Rights rubbish have any connection with the then Prime Minister's wife being a barrister specialising in just this lucrative field?
Secondly, how long will it be before the Act is changed to be the Human Rights and Responsibilities Act, with considerable weight on the second balancing side?

[Mowser]

Secondly, how long will it be before the Act is changed to be the Human Rights and Responsibilities Act, with considerable weight on the second balancing side?

Couldn't agree more Peter. With rights comes responsibilities. Well said.

[Devils Advocate]

firstly could the reason for Labour rushing to enshrine the Human Rights rubbish have any connection with the then Prime Minister's wife being a barrister specialising in just this lucrative field

If ever a post on this forum was correct and true then that was it.

[laswalkirias]

As somebody who was arrested 20 years ago (before present legal safeguards) by a dishonest policeman who was prepared to give perjured evidence to a Crown Court I dont think the ECHR can go far enough to ensure fair treatment for suspects or even guilty criminals.
Unfortunately the moral argurment against the abuse of Human rights legislation assummes that all parties involved in the justice system are honest and decent people.
I personally have found this not to be true

[markwilding]

I agree ..What seems to happen in these types of debates and in the middle England press is that they always focus on the negative stories and forget there are positive points too.
I like the idea that The authorities cannot just do as they like and that there are safegaurds for the rest of us.

[knowal]

As somebody who was arrested 20 years ago (before present legal safeguards) by a dishonest policeman who was prepared to give perjured evidence to a Crown Court I dont think the ECHR can go far enough to ensure fair treatment for suspects or even guilty criminals.
Unfortunately the moral argurment against the abuse of Human rights legislation assummes that all parties involved in the justice system are honest and decent people.
I personally have found this not to be true

The "legal safeguards", the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) was introduced in 1984.
That's 26 years ago.
Were you found guilty? Did you appeal?
What has it got to do with voting when locked up?

I don't think the prisoner's vote is likely to make a very significant difference to an election result.
I don't care whether they vote or not. Do criminals have a monolithic political allegiance? I think not.

I do believe that the UK should be governed from the UK, so if HM government say prisoners have no vote, that is also OK with me.

[Mowser]

Then again, we're lucky if more than 50% vote in an election.

[peteroldracer]

Of course in Australia you can be locked up for NOT voting!

[frank]

The authorities cannot just do as they like and that there are safegaurds for the rest of us.

The thing is ECHR can do pretty much as it likes, and there's nowt we can legally do about it, they are not answerable to anyone. Can we vote them out? Nope, same as we can't vote them in. At least with the government, if we don't like their decisions, we can vote them out at the next election. If you see the list of the rapists, terrorists, criminals, and their list of crimes, that we cannot eject from our country, it makes for some seriously depressing reading. Great, until they rehouse one of them next to some poor soul.

[Mowser]

Winston Churchill took the lead in setting up the Council of Europe and it was British jurists who shaped the European Commission on Human Rights and the ECHR.

[katy]

It is the stupid way that British law interprets the human rights laws especially the Judges. Look what happened when the muslim boy complained about the Teacher mentioning Ham...Spain threw it out quite rightly. Seems it is almost solely used in the UK for allowing criminals to stay or for compensation. Been watching all those thousands of immigrants arriving in Italy...wanna open a book as to where most of them will end up La La land of benefits and human rights!

[laswalkirias]

White Horse
How naieve of you to trust our British Police force!!
I was an innocent man ,who like you, trusted our Police service right until the time of arrest on totally trumped up charges 20 odd years ago.
It was only the day before my trial that my barrister noticed that the evidence against me was totally false, a quick word with Crown Prosecution lawyer and case dropped in an instant.!
After an internal investigation by Scotland yard of my complaint ,the investigator said that the police officer only submitted 4 pages of perjured evidence against me because he was convinced that I had comitted a crime at the time!!!!!(I had not)
How many innocent people are doing time as we speak,you always think that bent policeman are in plays on tv or hollywood movies, you would never imagine that you would be a victim of a "hate crime" by our Police Force, I have been there and as I said in my original post , human rights law is there to protect the innocent as well as unfortunately ,in my view ,the guilty.
If a few scumbags who ARE guilty of their crimes get to vote ,who cares?
Human rights laws are a pain in the a*** but without them, we are at the mercy of the state, baby and bathwater comes to my mind!

[julian]

good post..glad you posted it not me, I would have been burnt at the stake for such a post, without my human rights nor given chance to defend myself !!