Should the UK withdraw from the European Human Rights?

The problem with the Euro human rights is that a unelected self selected group of bureaucrats run the organisation. They introduce their own personal attributes and do-gooding ideas that are not supported by the majority of the UK electors.

Of course some of their ideas are acceptable, no one can be wrong on everything they do.

the government (legislature) reigns ultimate and could introduce any regulation it needs. to that end it may come to a selection to pass away the ecu and not adjust to ecu regulation and the Human Rights Act From ecu or the 1998 application to uk. Your rights are significant and could no longer be replaced via any courtroom interior a similar way we've Precedent -Case regulation - and so on desperate on specific judgements (Ratio Decidendi) Your question is exciting through fact which you open up the flexibility of government to abuse power. So if the regulation replaced with a view to get rid of Qatada - what may well be interior the info ?? you are able to guess there may well be factors affecting anybody in uk. mutually with my genuine to shout at Tony Blair - as in a public demo.

Yes, it should be replaced by a British Bill of Rights that underpins our structure and society far better than the European Human Rights can ever do. At least DC is in touch with what the people want, less emphasis on the rights of criminals. The UK is the only country in the EU that slavishly follows the European laws to the letter. All other countries have been defying parts of the European Human Rights Bill for years. It's about time we did the same.

The Tories are backpedalling like crazy on the issue. They made a manifesto pledge to scrap the Human Rights Act but Clegg said in an interview in today's Times that "any government would tamper with the HRA at it's peril" A clear indication that the Libs would consider withdrawing their support for the coalition if the Conservatives push through and withdraw Britain from the European Court of Human Rights.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/19/the...

Human rights are good in some ways but how is it right that someone who rapes or murders and probably never went any where near a polling station should be allowed to have a vote because they are in prison,just how is that a human right.Now I hear that the human rights people are saying that kiddie fiddlers should have the right to have their name removed from the offenders list after 15 years.It's all going potty,time for someone with an ounce of sense to take charge of the human rights brigade or do away with it altogether.

Yes - it has become too costly and farcical and benefitted only lawyers (esp Cherie Blairs chambers) , terrorists and asylum seekers.Its been applied to protect war criminals like the Rwandans responsible for the Genocide from being sent back home to face justice.

It is estimated to have cost the UK over £32bn in uneceeary payments and costs. The UK had one of the best international records on human rights without this unwarranted piece of legislation

I think we should. Decisions should be made by our own countries leaders, not by one central body trying to formulate laws and rules based around the huge population of lots of different countries.

I don't quite understand why people assume that if we pull out of it we suddenly become a cruel nation. A lot of the rulings seem to be cruel and insulting to victims of crime, for instance. And we wouldn't fall apart if we pulled out of the EU all together.

I think you and others who have answered may be some what confused about what the European Convention of Human Rights.

It was drafted and by the European Council (which is not the EU, the EEC, EEA or anything to do with trading or political union of Europe). The European Council was formed at the end of WW2 and currently has 47 member counrties and covers almost 20% of the worlds population or around 800,000,000 people, this includes many nations that are not part of the European Union including Russia, Albania, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Georgia and Turkey etc etc.

The UK was one of the founding members and the original treaty was signed in London in 1949 (way before the EU came into existence) - the Human Rights convention was signed in 1953 (again before the EU came into existence, and way before the UK joined).

If you and others above you are suggesting that the UK remove itself from the European Convention of Human Rights what you are effectively saying is that you propose we remove ourselves from the Council of Europe and as citizens have less human rights than somebody living in Russia or Turkey - In fact the only two nations in Europe who have not joined the Council of Europe is Belarus and Kazakhstan (due to human rights concerns) do you really want that? Because I dont!!!!

Only fascists want less human rights.

We should withdraw from the EU full stop.

Repeal the human rights and return to British Law - total free speech and rights to defend yourself and your property.