Skip to main content

More vacuous nonsense from David Cameron

In the simplistic world of PR the "Human Rights Act" works to undermine all the actions of the government in taking "action" to deal with security.

The first point is that you cannot have security without justice and to simply revert to a form of society without the "rule of law" where people are guilty because Tony says so is not a more secure society.

The second point is that before the 1998 Act there were similar rights in English common law that could quite easily be enforced.

The third point is that many of the cases cited arguing for the repeal of the act are actually not based upon the act.

What the act does is to codify the situation and give a much clearer position than the previous situation. The European Convention itself was based upon the UN Declaration and involved Britons in its writing and relates not to the European Union, but instead the Council of Europe.

The tories seem to want a "British Bill of Rights". Well, there is one of those which was passed in 1688 (or 1689 if you prefer). The fact is that the ECHR is actually British and codifies much of the traditional British Common Law rights.

David Cameron's quotation:
Why not try and write our own British bill of rights and responsibilities, clearly and precisely into law.
Shows that not only his gramatical ability is constrained, but also his logic is constrained.

Still the one thing I have learnt from being elected to parliament is that the debates are generally quite badly informed. The power of the whips means that generally MPs don't try to really understand and consider issues being debated. Most information is sourced second or third hand rather than going back to the original sources. This means that major debates (such as the recent one on 90 day incarceration without charge) actually end up missing the point to a great extent.

The Hansard Society are discussing the failure of scrutiny in the House of Commons. To me it is very clear why scrutiny substantially fails. That is because the government don't answer questions properly.


Gavin Whenman said…
Interestingly, one of the draftsmen for the ECHR went on to become a Conservative Lord Chancellor (Lord Kilmuir)

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).


R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…