End Human Rights Act, says Cameron?

Question

How can somebody who hopes to become Prime Minister (In his dream)advocate for the end of the Human Right Act.

Its unbelievable !!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 1

Quite rightly so, seen as the act was created in a different era (post WWII) and is now used mainly to the benefit of criminals, and false asylum applications.

The last attempted *decent* use of NuLabour's so highly praised stupid act actually failed...

Answer 2

Human rights act I was under the impression that a person still had certain rights even if a criminal. granted they should have limitations after all they are being punished for wrong doing. But if I had to sit in a 6 by 6 foot room for 23 hours a day I better have a least a tv or I would go bonkers. books to read, porno? I think that is taking it too far. better yet wouldn't it be better (may not work for murders rapists and violent ones) but others to work?

the best rehabitlitation is discipline, not just punishment.

now this act is abused I agree, trouble is if a politician is really pushing the end of it, there must be a hidden agenda, maybe they plan on arresting people who are dissenters, in debt etc, and throwing them in prison, and thus by getting rid of that act they are free to treat them any way they want? Or maybe this person is honest and that it is a bad act?

is there anywhere I can read about this human rights act that explains briefly and without technical babble about it?

I will google it but if you have a real nice website or book I can read let me know. by the way I thought a person's right ended when anothers began? an unruly child in a classroom is denying the right of the other children to peace and quiet learning enviroment? a prisoner smoking in a cell next to a non smoker right ends with the prisoner who can't keep the smoke out and thus should be denied smoking in the cell?

RRRRR

Answer 3

The human right Act should'nt have been made law. I know it helped a lot of people in the past (inocent victims) However
these days it seems like the only one's thats use the human right act are criminials.
Thats the part i don't agree; I believe once you committed crimes like they did, they should'nt have the same rights as us.
The cases itself cost a lot of money, which honest working citizens have to pay with their tax money. Just so they get treated more fairly!!! I mean whats that all about, no wonder the re-offending rates are so high. All the criminals are probably thinking that they can use the human rights act for everything.
I don't exactly agree with Camerons point of view, but I really believe that the human rights act has to be called off as there are more negative points about it than positive ones.
The human rights act should be used in a persuasive manner in courts rather than binding decisions. So that judges could use their own judgement on who can use it so it could aid the real innocent victims.

Answer 4

Not so unbelieveable when you consider that the only times you hear of the act being invoked is when criminals are trying to get away with something.

It may turn out to be a popular policy and again all because the silly socialists allow something good to be hijacked by the bad people.

Answer 5

The Law is based upon dry facts, and so is the Human Rights Act. Personally I believe the Act is a good thing, bot of course like all laws and acts they can't be expected to account for every conceivable circumstance and therefore we have to take the bad with the good.

Commonsense is subjective and has no place in Law.

Answer 6

My theory is prisoners should not be allowed to vote. As for those asserting it incredibly is ecu regulation, it incredibly is to 3 quantity, that being that a worldwide places own government can set out what prisoners are allowed to vote. it incredibly is accomplished by ability of length of reformatory sentence or form of offense, so all Cameron has to do is desperate a cut back of permitting absolutely everyone with decrease than 3 month sentence to vote, this could recommend that someplace around ninety 9% of them could not.

Answer 7

It is not unbelievable, it is uncharacteristic for Cameron to show a "Tebbitt" right wing streak and promote such virtues as the victim having rights over the criminal!
Given that most British political parties are all so middle of the road as to be indistguishable it is magnificent that the leader of the Conservative Party is starting to show some Right Wing opinions and my support grows for him.
I now wish Brown to show some truly Left Wing opinions so we can have some properly political parties and discussions in the UK again.

Answer 8

The Human Rights Act is now a total farce. Seems only to benefit people on the wrong side of the law nowadays. I agree with them getting rid of it or giving it a complete overhaul. Nowadays it seems that the criminals have more rights than the victims, i'm sick of reading about some poor family, whos 'human rights' have been cast aside for some sickos 'human rights'.

I hate to say it but i agree with Cameron here, even though it hurts me to do so.

Answer 9

the human rights act was produced by the British legal system after ww2 the rest of Europe incorporated it into there systems but it was assumed that the UK didn't need it as our laws covered everything. clearly this was not the case and we now have it enshrined in law.
any government could abolish the act but they would be opening a can of worms . if however our laws were written in a more common sense way we wouldn't need it.
when a convicted paedophile can claim that refusal to give him porn mags is a breach of his human rights then maybe it's time to start again.

I don't trust Cameron but i'll never vote labour again

Answer 10

The Human Rights Act certainly needs alteration so that common sense is included in order to protect victims of crime.