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. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…