Support human rights act?

Theres nothing to stop you from standing in a seperate LA though as I recall - so if you were paid by Wakefield you could stand in Leeds or Barnsley. Frankly I always thought it was a bit of a daft rule as whats advnatage could say a caretaker get or a driver? It's very old fashioned really.

You need a connection to an area, like working or owning or renting property, which I don't have in another area.

Back to basics.

'Human Rights' are nonsense in the context of the UK and all common-law jurisdictions. Why? Well, compare and contrast.

Common-law jurisdictions: everyone is a subject of the Crown [uK] or citizen [otherwise], with full right to do/own/say anything at all UNLESS the law prohibits or restricts.

Civil-law jurisdictions: everyone is a vassal of the State (akin to slavery, by the way!), with no right to do/own/say anything at all UNLESS the law permits.

It isn't nonsense at all, if it were no UK citizen would ever need to have gone to the ECHR to argue that a right had been breached.

Nor does being a citizen stop the government of the day deciding to take away something previously allowed, membership of the EU and HRA did though.

You didn't bother to quote the following sentence though

 

So, no, somebody can't spend the entire day on the phone without repercussions.

The point you've missed though is that something as mundane as this shouldn't be a "human right" up for argument and court cases.

From a speech by Chris Heaton-Harris, Conservative MP for Daventry:

The original European Convention on Human Rights was designed to counterbalance the dictatorships, in Nazi Germany and in the Soviet Union.

 

It was about saying that people should not be sent to prison camps without trial.

 

It was about saying that nations should not torture the prisoners they hold.

 

It was about saying that people should not be persecuted for religious beliefs.

 

Those are noble principles that are just as important today.

 

And Britain should always be a champion of real human rights, opposing dictatorship in places such as North Korea or helping promote democracy in emerging countries in Africa.

 

But I do not believe those who wrote the original document in the aftermath of the Second World War ever imagined it would be used for the things it is

used for today.

 

Over the years, European judges have taken it upon themselves to apply those original principles into more and more areas, into things which should always be a matter for our Parliament and not their courtrooms.

 

Like the ruling that prisoners should have the vote. Or that someone in our jails should have the right to artificial insemination with their partner while still serving their sentence. My constituents are clear that this needs to change.

Cases which undermined the Human Rights Act

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6400120/Cases-which-undermined-the-Human-Rights-Act.html

You need a connection to an area, like working or owning or renting property, which I don't have in another area.

Which is understandable, but it makes it even more stupid that someone working in the local area with a good connection to it cannot then stand.

As you say it's high time this was sorted out.

Which is understandable, but it makes it even more stupid that someone working in the local area with a good connection to it cannot then stand.

 

As you say it's high time this was sorted out.

I have emailed my MP, the Electoral Commission and various other bodies; lets see if one man can make a difference.

Are they, when did that come into force? They may be banned when operating machinery such as diggers, trucks etc.

No the're not...they are quite commonplace in the earthmoving industry..everyone has a mobile..

The point you've missed though is that something as mundane as this shouldn't be a "human right" up for argument and court cases.

Using a mobile phone isn’t a human right.

To put across a more balanced picture, there are many instances where the HRA has provided much needed assistance to secure justice for ordinary citizens. Some of the most publicised cases are set out on this website http://actfortheact.uk

No the're not...they are quite commonplace in the earthmoving industry..everyone has a mobile..

Sorry I meant they may be banned on building sites as a management policy, not everywhere.

No the're not...they are quite commonplace in the earthmoving industry..everyone has a mobile..

porn industry?

porn industry?

.."they are quite commonplace in the EARTHMOVING industry".....EARTHMOVING INDUSTRY.....ie..large machinery used for shifting large amounts of overburden.....i think you have your wires crossed....

.."they are quite commonplace in the EARTHMOVING industry".....EARTHMOVING INDUSTRY.....ie..large machinery used for shifting large amounts of overburden.....i think you have your wires crossed....

..................

The big debate on mass surveillance and privacy didn’t begin with Edward Snowden. The debate was already raging in 1999. The cause was a TV show reporting on the UK Ministry of Defence surveillance program. Liberty and a number of others British non governmental organisations did not like at all what they saw. They realised they may have been victims of the reported systematic mass surveillance of all telecommunications across the UK.

A case was launched, and – after nine years of fruitless battling in domestic courts – eventually ended up before the European Court of Human Rights. The Strasbourg judges did not need to go into the substance of the case to condemn the UK. They recognized that the mere existence of a vague and ambiguous legal framework regulating surveillance practices was a violation of the right to privacy. In other words, the “virtually unfettered” discretion exercised by the UK government in shaping its surveillance system was condemned as wrong by itself.

https://rightsinfo.org/stories/big-brother-is-watching-you/