Whilst we have been hoodwinked by the look over there tactics of the media with ' traingate ' the wheels are being set in motion by (pair of safe hands but actually very right wing) Theresa May to get rid of and replace the human rights act.

Can any sages on here explain why we should lose any or what is wrong with any of these:

Article 2 Right to life
Article 3 Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
Article 4 Freedom from slavery and forced labour
Article 5 Right to liberty and security
Article 6 Right to a fair trial
Article 7 No punishment without law
Article 8 Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence
Article 9 Freedom of thought, belief and religion
Article 10 Freedom of expression
Article 11 Freedom of assembly and association
Article 12 Right to marry and start a family
Article 14 Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms
Protocol 1, Article 1 Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
Protocol 1, Article 2 Right to education
Protocol 1, Article 3 Right to participate in free elections
Protocol 13, Article 1 Abolition of the death penalty

Actually what the ECHR said was that the UK needed to either allow some kind of enfranchisement for prisoners or pass legislation that resolved the current conflicting legislation. The ECHR does not set UK laws, it offers resolutions where the UK legal system contains a conflict (in this case to a series of laws and precedents that remove enfranchisement to vote for prisoners and the explicit Right to Vote as detailed in the UK 1998 UK Human Rights Act.

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree that there is a problem, that problem has stemmed from consecutive governments unwillingness to pass legislation specifically resolving issues of conflict.

Getting rid of or changing the UK Human Rights Act, to suit the political needs of Government, contradicts the very idea of giving people rights in the first place (which protect individuals from state authority and abuse of power etc).

It makes more sense that an oversight is provided then by a court that is not subject to political influence from that states influence.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Soon as I saw the title of the post. I knew who had started it......

Pro USA & Israel

I disagree. The very basis of the concept of the social contract, establishes the ideal of the role of state and individual. An individual has no duty to the state, as the state is representative of the individual.

The concept of duties due the state are bound into the relationship between individual and state. The state is a product of the contribution of the individual members of that state. Duties are implied

For example, the provision of taxes and national insurance, payment of council tax, adherence to the law and administrative process of the state that govern from birth to death etc. These are the duties of citizens, inherent in the system, and these predate the concept of explicit rights in the UK.

Certain obligations are undertaken by nationality, relating to offences against the state, that would not apply to foreign nationals (treason offences, and restriction on employment in certain areas of the UK is strictly limited to UK citizens).

To say we have no duties, is incorrect, we have many duties to the state. We just don't think of them as such.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]