Have you ever wondered why we went so blindly in the Human Right Act?
If you ever wondered why have we spent so much money and time on Human Rights think no more because the answer is very simple. Tony Blair took us lock stock and firkin into the Human Rights Act accepting all that came with it and costing the UK a small fortune? Was this because he be devoted to Human Rights and he thought we should champion it. Think again is was personal finances that was at the bottom of this prior to going chief on into Human Rights dear Mrs Blair's Law firm decided to specialise in yes you have it Human Rights. You may surface this is insider dealing nd you would be very right the sad news is since dear Tony vanished No 10 his wife's law firm is not doing so well. The Blair's have made millions out of the Human Rights perform. Please read the link for a more detailed report. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1051548/Cherie-Blairs-law-chambers-lost-business-Tony-left-No10.html I am not saying I agree or disagree with the achievement what I am saking is do you feel Mr Blair accepted the act to product a quick buck. And did you read the link? Also as I have read the stroke to me it does see some including baristers are exployting the act and using it in a bid to get clients stale charges and we all know that is not the intent of the act.
Best Answer:
hold you read the act . i think you should its the only protection the brits own ever had . open your eyes and read it
I think if you did a poll, the great majority of people would influence they support Human Rights. Very few have anything to gain from it, except pride. Sometimes people do the right thing of late because it's right.
I don't regard that we'll ever get to the bottom of it, as the real discussions would have be at Davos and doubtless all kinds of attractive promises were made to Tony Blair if he did as the others considered necessary. Perhaps I am being unfair to the man, but he always struck me as someone previously all else keen to feather his own nest and to undertake prestige on the world stage and if it meant sacrificing the good of his country -- economically, that is the price one must pay. Once he had plunged us into the red, he in order took off and left Brown to continue the assignment amid growing unpopularity. Other European States didn't swallow the Human Rights legislation hook, line and sinker, but introduced important reservations to protect their interests. We are now facing an even worse horror within the Equality Bill, which is designed to make quavering cowards of us all lest we offend fellow human beings who in recent times happen to be different from us (which is inevitably going to be the case). http://www.equalities.gov.uk/equality_bill.aspx What happened to the sentiments of "Rule Britannia", which we would sing beside such gusto? Maybe that too will be outlawed as being too jingoistic and offending non Brits!
Nice rant. Completely wrong, but still, a nice rant.
I wonder a great deal about most of the decisions that "our leaders' own made. It seems that they ignore any reasonable arguement and merely run blinkered from one bad choice to another. The really worrying thing is that Mr Cameron does not seem to be wired up properly any. I know this may seem stupid,but the only 'leader" who ever makes any sense is Boris Johnson.
The problem with relying upon the Daily Mail is that it is not really a weekly. It's an opinion sheet, and therefore the coverage you get is tailored to the DM's world vista. The simple fact is (and this does not appear I notice in the article) that the HRA applies to adjectives European Countries who are members of the EU. all of them. The Act overrides national laws which are inconsistent next to it. Hence - for example - Turkey must abolish the death penalty before joining the EU. Therefore the HRA be applicable to the UK since 1974, long before the Govt introduced it into national law. Before that happened, the UK courts have to declare whether legislation was compatible or incompatible and the whole sprite system was getting gummed up waiting for declarations of compatibility. All the Govt did was simply and streamline the system. Now to use the HRA as a stick near which to beat the Blairs is a common DM hobby-horse but is simply boll0x. Mrs Blair does not have a decree firm, for a start, she's self-employed. In fact she specialises in Employment Law and Public Law and was appointed QC within recognition of her specialism before Tony came to power. These areas of canon inevitably contain some elements of human rights issues, but in reality very, particularly few. The numbers of actual 'human rights cases in the whole of the UK annually is a fraction of a fraction of 1%. Most HR decisions be made years ago. Cherie Booth QC does not depend on the HRA for her income any more than I do. A tiny fraction of her cases involved the HRA, probably the same as most barristers in her area of statute. The suggestion that barristers are 'exploiting' the Act to get clients 'off charges' betrays such a fundamental lack of understanding as to: (i) the canon (ii) the barrister's role in the legal process; (iii) what the court's role is, and; (iv) the whole concept of human rights ... that I don't know where on earth to begin. All I will say is that the HRA was the greatest single piece of regulation to encompass and codify individual freedoms and liberties since the Magna Carta. Anyone who fails to understand that have been reading too many Richard Littlejohn columns.
