You expect this lot (let alone any other lot) to come up with anything 'common sense'

f***ing hell, people are so gullible for abstract nouns...

What would be part of a 'common sense' bill of human rights?

Have a look through the current Human rights act and tell us what should be removed, in your opinion.

[Link]

I've had a look through and there seem to be enough legal caveats to cover terrorism.

Out of interest, what human rights should immigrants be deprived of?

How many instances of the flouting of the human rights act , the sort that you are alluding to, are there in the UK per year?

As for the right to a fair trial. That's gone I'm afraid. Something else you can thank David for...

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jul 2015 7.14pm)

Haven't been on the hol for long have you?

Do you even know what the human rights act contains?

Are you saying because of one case involving a cat, where the judge was obviously an arse (I doubt the event even happened but I'd be happy to be put right) is reason to tear up one of the most important documents in recent history?

Unfortunately,the poster who raised the "cat case" appeared to be so busy working themselves into a lather describing immigrants generically as "cockroaches" of whom 50% as such should be deported (Adolf and Goebbels would have been proud of the subtlety of terminology and analysis utilised,just replace "immigrants" with "jews",they swallowed (being an open minded unprejudiced person no doubt) Theresa May's ignorant rabble rousing propaganda (echoing, surprise surprise, the open minded and unbiased approach of the Tory-supporting press) at face value.

The contemporary BBC report sheds more light on the "claim":

"Addressing party activists in Manchester, Mrs May attacked what she said were excessive uses of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights - the right to family life.
She said Article 8 had been used to prevent the removal of foreign national prisoners and illegal immigrants.

She said: "We all know the stories... about the illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because, and I am not making this up, he had a pet cat."

Within minutes, a spokesman for the Judicial Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, which issues statements on behalf of senior judges, said: "This was a case in which the Home Office conceded that they had mistakenly failed to apply their own policy - applying at that time to that appellant - for dealing with unmarried partners of people settled in the UK.
"That was the basis for the decision to uphold the original tribunal decision - the cat had nothing to do with the decision."

For the senior judges to come out with something like that would not be an everyday thing and illustrates how so much c..p is spouted by so many about the Human Rights Act and who frequently have no experience of actually seeing it in general operation in the Courts on a regular basis.Rather,they retreat into the blind prejudice comfort zone of a few instances,accurate or otherwise( (ie any "system" can be and is abused by a few, including those they support) and ignore the many more positives.

Edited by legaleagle (22 Jul 2015 9.06pm)

Right out of the left wing hand book on how to win an argument on immigration. Against immigration? 'You Nazi you!!! How dare you! Don't you know that you're to go to work 12 hours a day just to support the terminally selfish stupid and lazy! Let everyone in and let them sponge off the system!'. Never mind that we have enough home grown spongers and that our whole infastructure of this country is creaking under the weight of the immigration farse. There's no telling some people.

Right,so the salient quote from your link concerning laws "related in some way to Europe":

"All measurements have their problems and it is possible to justify any measure between 15 per cent and 50 per cent or thereabouts.”

"A majority" as you stated means over 50% per cent,not somewhere between 15%-50%.

You're obviously a dyed in the wool lefty. The Human rights act is an absolute disaster. I'll tell you what rights immigrants shouldn't have the right to coming here and ripping the dam system off for a start. I don't pay my taxes to support some scum bag who hates our way of life but will willingly take our charity. The current levels of immigration are totally unsustainable. Half these cockroaches should be deported and not let back in. I don't expect any politician of any political persuasion to come up with anything common sense, especially those of left leaning views. As for what should be removed from the current human rights act? Well I wouldn't remove anything......I'd tear the whole dam thing up. It was because of the human rights act that we couldn't get rid of captain hook for the best part of ten years, that Choudary couldn't be deported because of his 'right to a family life'. What about the god dam right of the people of this country not to be blown up on their daily commute? Hell there was even some judge who refused to deport an immigrant, WHO WAS HERE ILLEGALY, because he had a cat, and therefore had 'a family life' in this country. My view will NOT change on it, it should be ripped up, end of.

Actually it wasn't anything to do with human rights. Even prior to 1998 it would have been almost impossible to deport someone to a country that they'd been granted asylum from. The ECHR serves as the highest court of appeal in all UK cases, has done so since its inception.

Choudary can't be deported because he is British, and despite being a c**t, he was born in the UK.

The cat story isn't true. The defendant had a cat, but the judges decision was based on family, the cat was irrelivent (its not mentioned at all in the judges summation). The decision was made on common-law relationships.

But don't let the actual context or facts get in the way. Much better to propose a system where by only the people you like can be british and have rights.