Anyone who wants a summary of why the worryingly ignorant and muddled plans of the dangerously incompetent buffoon Grayling are ludicrous could do worse for an introduction than read this article:

[urlhttp://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n20/francis-fitzgibbon/short-cuts[/url



The trouble is that among the dumbed-down masses, detailed consideration is not popular and Daily Wail stylee kneejerks are. So no doubt as long as Grayling remains in post, he will continue to get away with his bizarre "reforms" while the reputation of British law built up over centuries goes swirling down the pan.

Why would we need a Bill of Rights. We already have all those rights set down in law.



The reason the US Bill of Rights was so important was they didn't currently hold those rights and were setting up their own country.



We should help Iraq and Afghanistan set one up. That'd be a far better use of time.

I was working in the Home Office when the HRA was being discussed and introduced, and one of the key reasons for it (I skimmed the link so it may have been covered) was to avoid people having to take their case on anything under the convention to the dreaded "Strasbourg" as their rights could be a) decided by UK courts instead and b) included in any new legislation, policies and revisions of policy which meant that the possibility of having to go to court at all was reduced. Public bodies and others were required to consider Convention rights as part of any proposals.



This beneficial point seems to be missed and "human rights" is now a great demon only used by ne'er do wells who shouldn't have rights anyway.



At the risk of invoking Godwin, it shouldn't be forgotten that the Convention, and the rights that flow from it, was developed from the universal declaration after the Second World War to avoid the whole Nazi thing happening again. How interesting that this current lot want to withdraw from the convention!

Outstanding assassination of Grayling is that. If he read it, it ought to persuade him to resign!

This week's [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04l0wzvLaw in Action[/url on Radio 4 makes an interesting listen. Apart from being presented by Joshua Rozenburg, the panel of; Lord Judge, Lady Hale and Keir Starmer discuss the "most significant legal developments over the last 30 years"



Apart from being Justice Secretary, Grayling is also Lord Chancellor and I can't find out who was the last Lord Chancellor who had zero legal experience before him. Mind you, we've got a Health Secretary who believes in homeopathy and only recently ditched an Environment Secretary who believes gobal warming is a myth

I suspect those who were initially involved in the Convention could never have envisaged how it is now being (mis)used!

You mean in terms of protecting people from arbitrary, biased decisions?

No

What then?

Voting rights for prisoners.



Are you telling me issues such as that was considered by those drafting the convention?



Parliament in this country should decide the laws of this country.

Why should that be an issue with anyone?







They probably never considered iPads or Blackberries either. Again relevance?







Parliament does decide the laws in this country but they should always be decided with a mind to the various conventions that we are signatories.

Another penny in the (UKIP) hat...