The Party Conferences

If the Human Rights Act was repealed then maybe just maybe it could be replaced with a Bill of Rights as our American friends have done so since 1789?

ralphchadkirk said:

I think it would be a sad day for Britain if the HRA did go. There are basic rights, which, I believe everyone should be entitled to regardless of who they are or what they have done. Everything from the right to a fair trial, to freedom of expression.

Click to expand...

I agree, except with your first sentence. The act was rushed, badly written and pushed through parliament. A proper job to incorporate the European law (amended by the current commission) would be very welcome.
What I would eventually like to see is a time when party conferences are treated as the insignificant events they are. Actual party membership is very low, but tends towards the extremist view, but, at conference time this becomes the image of the party. Very few Conservatives are anti-Europe or want the death penalty, and very few Labour supporters are worried about toffs or quotas for women in boardrooms. Once elections have been fought, and parliament formed, MPs should be allowed to get on with introducing and scrutinising legislation, and parties should concentrate on refining their stall for the next election.

The trouble is, the HRA sounds good on paper, but rarely is it used in practice for what it was designed to do. With freedom of expression, freedom of choice etc comes a degree of responsibility, and, in practice, this act has encouraged many of us to shirk our personal responsibilities, simply on the cliche that we live in a 'free world'. Sure everyone has the right to a fair trial, but that does not mean you can ignore your responsibilities during this trial, especially if you were the accused during a murder trial.
It would be a sad day if people were no longer entitled to their basic freedoms, but the act needs to be a lot more tighter to force people to realise that with access to our basic liberties comes responsibility.

passmore said:

The trouble is, the HRA sounds good on paper, but rarely is it used in practice for what it was designed to do. With freedom of expression, freedom of choice etc comes a degree of responsibility, and, in practice, this act has encouraged many of us to shirk our personal responsibilities, simply on the cliche that we live in a 'free world'. Sure everyone has the right to a fair trial, but that does not mean you can ignore your responsibilities during this trial, especially if you were the accused during a murder trial.
It would be a sad day if people were no longer entitled to their basic freedoms, but the act needs to be a lot more tighter to force people to realise that with access to our basic liberties comes responsibility.

Click to expand...

I agree. The Act should not be abolished, it should be rewritten to tighten up some of the loophoels that have been exploited by lawyers over the past few years.

Re the party conferences; is that it now? Or is there any more rubbish still to come?