Thursday, 25 August 2011

I wonder

if those of us who bemoan the lack of proper journalism have a case under human rights laws, where our rights are concerned, in that we must have a right to expect factual and complete information from our media and those employed in it?

Allison Pearson (not I think a 'dumb blonde' - but I could be mistaken) has an article in today's Daily Telegraph entitled "The law is 'avin a laugh – but the joke is on Britain", one in which she ridicules the recent sentences (or lack of) imposed on immigrants -- and others - for crimes commited, due to their reliance, in their defence, on their human rights. Taken at face value, Allison Pearson's article hits the public concerns; makes quite good 'copy'; and probably helps to sell a few more copies of the paper for which she 'writes' - but as a piece of informative journalism it is pure crap.

In her article Allison Pearson informs us that the abuse of human rights make Cameron mad too; reminds him that he promised a new Bill of Rights, continuing:
"He assured me the Government was setting up a commission to look into a British Bill of Rights. What he omitted to tell me was that Nick Clegg would be in charge of it. I’m sorry, but allowing the Deputy Prime Minister to head a body to scrap the Human Rights Act is like appointing a vegan to the Texas Beef Council."
Therein lies one of Cameron's problems about the abuse of human rights, in that the LibDem tail will not allow the Conservative body to do squat diddly about changing the law on human rights - a fact that, to be fair, Pearson does acknowledge.

Where I have to take issue with her is on two counts. She states that the PM could do himself and the country a power of good by jettisoning a law that makes a mockery of the very justice it is intended to dispense, but fails to mention two points. First, judgements being handed down are intended to be compliant with obligations imposed by our membership of the European Union and also with the European Court of Human Rights, the latter to which we are beholden as a condition of said membership of the European Union. Second, were we to rewrite our Human Rights Act any appeals passed against sentencing under that Act would ultimately find their way to the European Court of Human Rights - which begs the question what is the point of attempting to amend the existing Act of Parliament?

Where I am wholeheartedly with Allison Pearson is where, quoting Cameron as stating that he is determined to get a grip on the twisting and misrepresentation of human rights, she writes:
"Three cheers for those noble words, Prime Minister, but what the hell are you going to DO about it?"
Exactly! So Mr. Cameron, what do you propose to do about something about which you can do nothing?

Just asking, David - just asking..........


john in cheshire said...


DeeDee99 said...

Anyone with even half a brain should know by now that Cast Iron Dave is all hot air. Nothing he promises is ever likely to materialise because his minders simply won't let him take the appropriate action - leave the EU - even IF he wanted to, and he doesn't.

He is a spin merchant; a PR spiv so don't expect any action because there won't be any.

Proof landed today when we learn that far from decreasing net migration to the UK to the tens of thousands, it has in fact jumped to in excess of 230,000 a year.

john in cheshire said...

DeeDee99, and most of them were third world immigrants; ie muslims; the very people we really, really don't want and don't need in our country. Mr Cameron is showing himself to be the traitor that some of us thought he was at election time.

TomTom said...

Since Case Law is the basis of High Court and Appeal Court rulings the bank of Judgments already predicated on the ECHR make the HRA moot. Even after abolition the Judgments stand and the quasi Supreme Court, itself a subsidiary of the European Court of Justice in Brussels is bound by the European Charter which embodies ECHR rules.

The Gordian Knot has only one solution

WitteringsfromWitney said...

jic: Hang on, I asked that question.....!

Haven't actually dissected the stats so can't comment on that assertion.

DD99:I know, I know........

TT: And we all know how to cut the bloody knot....!

Anonymous said...

Who, in their right mind, would allow any of the present elected or unelected incumbants in Westminster go anywhere near a proposed bill of rights.
It certainly wouldn't start with
"we the people"

cosmic said...


I suggest it would begin, "You the stakeholders...".

Anyway, it isn't likely to happen with anything like the present setup, well maybe in some homeopathic dilution, like the "Referendum Lock". You see not only would no one with any sense want the present incumbents of Westminster to go anywhere near it, they don't want to either.

Anonymous said...

The UK gov cannot change the human rights laws.
Not without leaving the EU
And that isn't going to happen.