The Bill of Rights would be useless anyway

Chuck Unsworth

Grayling.

Ah, yes.

Robert

"Strasbourg has repeatedly ruled against the use of anonymous witnesses in murder trials, for example – Jack Straw was on a hiding to nothing when he said he’d change the law."

That case had nothing to do with the ECHR. It was found under English common law that a case could not be justly be sustained primarily on the basis of evidence given anonymously by witnesses whose veracity was integral to the case - e.g. where the witness could have been lying for personal gain or biased against the defendant.

DavidDP

That damn Churchill and his human rights. What has the man done to us, eh?

Publius

"Strasbourg always was going to reign supreme"

-- Ah, that's alright then. Now, why did I bother voting?

Sir Trev Skint MP

So when Cameron said....

'They won’t give us proper border controls but they long to give us ID cards. They trash important civil liberties like jury trial but they will keep the Human Rights Act that actually hinders our fight against terrorism.

But it wasn’t just that, it was the cynicism of it. He told us things that he knows he can’t do: ‘British jobs for British workers’ is illegal under EU law. ‘Deporting people for gun and knife crime’, you can’t do that because of the Human Rights Act. I have to say to our prime minister: ‘If you treat people like fools you don’t deserve to run the country let alone win an election’.

We will give Britain a proper Border Police Force, and we will scrap the pointless ID cards. We will defend important civil liberties like jury trial but we will replace the Human Rights act.'

Was he lying Fraser????

Christopher White

What about Strasbourg not reigning supreme?

The Americans put their lives on the line for self-government.

Noa

So if the Bill of Rights proposed by Dominic Grieve is useless, what use is he?

Are you 'outing' him on grounds of incompetence or bias?

And why should we be concerned at the odd signal to Europe in reasserting the primacy of English over EU law?

Will J

Ok, here's the plan. We use the coalition to put into place everything we agree with the Lib Dems on or can get them to concede. We share the pain of cuts with them, and then at the next election win a majority. An even more Eurosceptic conservative Parliament then puts through the more controversial things, like scrapping the HRA.

Slowly slowly catchee monkey.

Ian C

You may be correct Fraser, and will be better informed than we are. But we were led to believe that we can get away from the sort of manic stupidity like having to keep non-resident/domiciled terrorists in this country even when they have been found guilty by non-controversial means.

It flies in the face of natural justice and it needs to be rectified. We thought the Tories would do that. Were we mistaken? Is the colaition a barrier? If so, we have a problem. not a terminal one, but a very real negative one that will go against the coalition's positive ones.

Fact checker

Er, good attempt at revisionism Fraser, but Cameron made something like a cast iron guarantee on replacing the HRA with a Bill of Rights in his pledges to The Sun ( http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2664870/David-Cameron-My-blueprint-for-Britain.html)

So whatever the rights and wrongs, he gave a firm pledge to get rid of it.

John Wright

Time to stop this farce.It NOT the fault of the judges,It was introduced into this country By theB..... Blair so that the woman he sleeps with could make more money for the pair of them .Every one else in europe must have this problem .What do they do when they have these Terrorists??.If europe cannot solve this problem then we must get out or stop all pakistanis entering this country.Perhaps someone can tellus how much all this costs, legal aid,constant mi5 servalence etc.All adding to the enormous debts for which our taxes will rocket.

Tiberius

In the case under review, the court accepted the guilt of these three guys.

What I should like a lawyer to explain is why the judgement not to deport is allowed to be made because of a mere theoretical threat to the accused.

Or are we to believe that anyone convicted of anything can avoid prison just by expressing fear that he might be beaten up by Mr Big?

denis cooper

Fraser, Article 6, your own reference, says NOTHING about the use of anonymous witnesses.

"Article 6 – Right to a fair trial

1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

a. to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;

b. to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;

c. to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;

d. to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

d. to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court."

The closest it comes is that if the prosecution is allowed to call anonymous witnesses, then the defence must also be allowed to call anonymous witnesses - "the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him".

Morus

Noa - it wouldn't be much of a signal about English law taking precedence over EU law if we pulled out of the ECHR.

The ECHR is not a creature of the EU - it is a Treaty and a Court of the Council of Europe, not the European Union. The reason that many moderately Euroskeptic Tories enjoy making noise about it is that it is a way to sound euroskeptic to voters without actually risking things like EU trade and integration.

Catesby

Fraser

Although you have cleared up some misunderstandings here, I fear you have introduced a few of your own.

A Bill of Rights could be jolly useful because it would improve on the current system under which the ECHR is applied here. By simply adopting the ECHR into our law via the HRA, we have ended up with a situation where pretty much all the interpretation of the ECHR â“ all the balancing of one important right against another â“ is done by judges (often foreign judges). However, a Bill of Rights would allow our legislature to exercise some of this interpretive power. European HR law allows for a â˜margin of appreciationâ™ by different countries. Other European countries with written constitutions (e.g. Germany with its constitutional court) already enjoy this. The judges in Strasbourg are required to pay heed to these particular appreciations when making their decisions.

Second, a Bill of Rights could enumerate rights that the ECHR doesnâ™t cover â“ e.g. trial by jury.

Third, a Bill of Rights could narrow and clarify in ways that would prevent the ridiculous examples we have seen where Police wonâ™t issue Wanted posters because theyâ™ve read somewhere that using someoneâ™s photo without permission has been found at Strasbourg to invade a right of privacy.

Lastly, you are wrong about Jack Straw. Article 6 need not be read to prohibit anonymous witnesses so long as they are examined in court. The case law you offer from the Netherlands and Austria relates to witnesses who could not be examined and whose testimony was mere hearsay provided by Police officers. A witness could be Mr A and give evidence from behind a screen (as MI5 types do) without violating Article 6, so long as they could be cross-examined. But weâ™d need a law/ BoR to allow it.

Justicia

Removing the HRA without leaving the ECHR (an unconscionable move) is insanity.

It would mean a human rights claim, something that every individual should have access to, must once again exhaust national remedies and cost on average £40,000.

It would mean Strasbourg judges (who if you think British judges are over-reaching and do not understand our national needs would be far worse simply because they are from different political and legal systems) decide the law instead of us.

It would completely overburden parliament as instead of allowing judges to interpret acts of parliament in line with convention rights, they would be forced to automatically declare them incompatible, requiring new legislation.

The Tories call for a British Bill of Rights is unbelievably stupid, which is why the few of them with any constitutional knowledge are dead set against it.

Alistair Watson

Ian C is right, we need a government that will EFFECTIVELY correct what the vast number of people in country see as a wrong. I’m not a lawyer and will happily accept that the EHRA is desirable but I will not accept the injustice that is being imposed on us by sheltering those who bite our hand.

Ian Walker

Will J - plus of course, the switch to AV will mean that Tories in marginal seats will have to be openly Eurosceptic or risk losing to people putting UKIP as first preference.

As you say, slowly slowly. 5 years is not too long a wait...

djw2009

Fraser, you've lost all credibility. A few months ago you were criticising Cameron, and now you have become an extreme partisan. I think we can discount anything you say on the subject from here on. Did you really have to transmogrify into Matthew d'Ancona Mark 2?

For your information - hell, you need it! - we already have a Bill of Rights - 1689 - and it is still in force! And yes, these laws are only as good as the judiciary who enforce them - and our judiciary are sniggering at us as they refuse to uphold our laws. Take for instance, the Bill of Rights' provision that we are entitled to weapons for our self-defence - Parliament has never repealed that (and in my view the Common Law right to arms overrides anything this bunch of elected charlatans has to say on the matter...), and yet the Lords of Appeal are not really interested in the Bill of Rights, and have substituted their personal opinions for it. To say "we need another Bill of Rights" would, as you say, "be useless anyway" because the judges would simply negate it as soon as they could.

What about Mr Justice Laws who ruled that the European Communities Act 1972 had not been overriden by an 1985 law because "constitutional laws can only be expressly repealed and not impliedly repealed" - he invented that legal principle on the spot! And failed to realise that, if that were so, the European Communities Act is not law either - as it failed to express repeal the Act of Union, the Coronation Oath Act, the Act of Succession and a few others.

So you see, we don't have the rule of law in this country any more. If you started from that premise, Fraser, you might being to forge a reputation as a conservative. As it is, I am wondering why you are not in the Liberal Democratic Party - or the Labour Party.

Robert Eve

We should pull out of the ECHR.

Vulture

Your piece, Fraser, reeks of the arrogant 'WE know best and sod all you poor plebs out there' attitude shared by the Westminster hamlet of politicians and their journalist lackeys.

Just because you've had a few cosy chats with that old goat Grieve - an out-of-touch lawyer if ever there was one - should NOT mean that 'Strasbourg reigns supreme'.

It is an affront to natural justice ( not to mention common sense) - that terrorists should live in comfort for the rest of their days at the cost of the British taxpayers they wanted to blow up.

If Grieve cannot see that this is an abomination then Grieve is a fool. And so are you for slavishly supporting him.

John Goode

I believe you are incorrect Fraser. The UK is dualist. Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires that we interpret "so far as it is possible" our legislation in line with the ECHR but that if it is impossible to do so we are merely required under section 4 to give a declaration of incompatibility.

We may get an adverse ruling from Strasburg but it will only require us to declare incompatibility.

You may well have our relationship confused between the Council of Europe (47 countries signatories to the ECHR) and the European Union (27 countries member states) where under the European Communities Act 1972 we are required to comply with the EU i.e. Brussels. IOW the CE and the EU are different entities

michael

How has European justice moved on in the last generation?....absolutely nowhere. what has happened to our islamic communities in that generation?

"You have the watches but we have the time"

denis cooper

The proposal for a British Bill of Rights was never much more than a typical Tory gimmick.

Cameron would have done better to read the 1689 English Bill of Rights and reflect upon the events which led up to it.

But I would like to ask you, Fraser, to come out and say whether or not you believe in the supremacy of Parliament.

It is perfectly clear that Grieve does not believe in the supremacy of Parliament, because it was his advice to Cameron that Tory MPs should not vote for Bill Cash's New Clause 9 to affirm the supremacy of Parliament and defend it from attack through Declaration 17 attached to the Treaty of Lisbon.

Division 120 here, on the evening of March 5th 2008:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080305/debtext/80305-0024.htm

"New Clause 9

Supremacy of Parliament

‘Notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities Act 1972, nothing in this Act shall affect or be construed by any court in the United Kingdom as affecting the supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament.’.— [Mr. Cash.]"

"The Committee having divided: Ayes 48, Noes 380."

By rights that amendment should have sailed through unopposed.

So where do you stand, Fraser? Are you committed to the supremacy of our Parliament, or not?

Today MPs will be taking the Oath of Allegiance, which will mean little or nothing to the great majority of them; if any of them had shown clear signs that their primary loyalty was to this country and its people then it's unlikely that they would have got through the pre-selection and final selection processes to become official candidates for any of the three main parties.

If that is to change then we must break this system whereby three anti-patriotic, anti-democratic, deceitful, corrupt, degenerate, self-seeking and incompetent political gangs can be sure of filling the benches of the Commons with their gang members.

Philip Walker

As a good history grad, Fraser will be fully aware no doubt that anonymous witnesses were considered a gross injustice by the Romans, in common with most other ancient civilisations. Favouring their introduction would overthrow *millennia* of liberty and justice.

Still, what use is a Conservative if you can conserve all the way back into prehistory, eh?

Mycroft

This is surely right, the bill of rights was never going to amount to very much. On the other hand, the commission may be able to find some way of dealing with some of the absurdities that arise from this human rights legislation, and it is actually advantage that this need not be seen as a purely 'right wing' issue.

Barry

We already have a Bill of Rights and have done for 321 years. Several troughing MPs recently tried to hide behind it. We do not need another one and most certainly not one junior to any other authority. The one we have is enough. Parliament is sovereign despite what a great many people say, it is just we keep filling it with people who would merrily lend the authority *we* vested in *them* to others for a quiet and comfortable career.

Does the Human Rights Act prevent the deportations? Article 8.2 would appear to allow States substantial leeway in circumstances such as national security, economic security and even to protect the rights of others.

djw2009

>>>Was he lying Fraser????

Yes, of course he was lying. But what Fraser is saying is that WE ARE THE STUPID ONES FOR BELIEVING CAMERON, BECAUSE OF COURSE CAMERON NEVER WAS GOING TO DELIVER ON THESE PROMISES. There is not a hint in Fraser's blog that we should withdraw from the aegis of both the ECJ and the EHRC - why are all "Establishment Conservatives" so pro-quangocratic in their views? Lenin once summed up politics as "who? to whom?" Who gets to do what to whom.

Well the "who" is: quangocrats, unelected bureaucrats at home and abroad. Think quangoes, think of the reams of regulation from our own civil service that does not go through Parliament, think of the laws and regulations from Brussels. But also bear in mind that this set up creates jobs for a certain type of person: Cameron doesn't think there is anything wrong in that lady getting £247,000 plus expenses plus pension contributions for running the quango England Walking!, because he mixes with people who hope to get such sinecures. He might want to replace Labour's placemen with his own - but not do away with the sinecures entirely.

What Lenin meant is that any society can be analysed on a class basis. He was a pinko, but he was right on that fact, and in fact the society he created, the USSR, could be analysed along the same who? whom? lines. What Cameron has noted is that a whole class of people rule in the UK, not because of their place in industry - forget capitalism - the capitalists are not the real rulers today - but because of their place in the bureaucracy. The sponger who heads the BBC gets his £800K from the licence fee. The quango heads are rolling in cash, but not earning it in the private sector. The local council chiefs award themselves astonishing sums nowadays. Even charity bosses, largely dependent on state funding in a semi-quangoized sector, reward themselves handsomely in what I can only characterize as charity fraud. The Eurocrats and the EuroMPs - well, I don't think I need to say too much on them. Cameron supports this class of people, when he ought to be SUPPLANTING THEM AND BRINGING BACK CAPITALISM WITH THE CAPTAINS OF INDUSTRY IN CHARGE ONCE AGAIN.

And who is the "whom"? Well, that would be most people in the UK - people Cameron depends on to vote for him. Uniquely in history, we have quangocratic propaganda beamed into our living rooms every day. I don't think any former ruling elite had access to such a powerful opinion-forming tool. Fraser is a pro-quangocrat too - he is part of their opinion-forming hangers-on instructed to "get the vote out". His rag would editorialise about the need to get the Tories in office, only to backpeddle on nearly everything once they got in office.

We must be fools. Fools to vote for any of the parties. Fools to pay anything for the Spectator. Fools to even read Fraser's pro-quangocratic tripe, actually. And as fools, we deserve our fate. I for one will never forget I belonged to a free nation, albeit one in the process of abolition by the political class and their media sidekicks - I will never accept rule by this quangocratic elite - no matter how many articles on the subject you pen, Fraser. In me, Fraser boy, you have met your match.

Autonomous Mind

Will J, you said 'Slowly slowly catchee monkey'. Sadly we are the monkeys being caught.

The Tories backtracked on the HRA long before a coalition was ever thought of. In fact it was January when Patrick O'Flynn of the Express explained how Dominic Grieve let on that the Bill of Rights pledge was being downgraded.

So, if you get your wish of a Conservative government free of Lib Dems, don't hold your breath hoping for the HRA to be repealed, or any more eurosceptic approach to be adopted. You'll be waiting a long time.

Nicholas

Disappointing. Grieve is an ass. Regarding djw2009's valid point about the One, True Bill of Rights, the House of Commons Library briefing note to MP's (SN/PC/0293 dated 5 Oct 2009) sets out the general contempt of our modern "authorities" for that:-

"However, many of the Bill's original articles, while never formally repealed, are generally regarded as having been superceded by subsequent legislation. For example, the article covering the right of protestant subjects to bear arms is generally considered to fall into this category. The Bill of Rights was essentially a political settlement concerned with resolving the particular political issues of the day. The relevance of some of its provisions to the political life of today is questionable."

Imagine them trying to dismiss the US Constitution using those weasel words, eh?

The English should rebel now. Plain and simple.

djw2009

Nicholas, the point of the 17th century Bill of Rights was not that the politicians were "awarding" us some rights. It was a codification of the Rights the English had always had. The right to bear arms has not been "superceded" by later legisation - note how they say "superceded" rather than "repealed"! The legislation now says that the police have the right to give out firearms licences, but it has been argued in the High Court that they cannot do so in such a way as to substantially nullify the non-repealed right to bear arms as given in the Common Law and the Bill of Rights. In other words, they may prevent the insane and criminals from having licences, but to follow a general policy of refusing all licences to anyone claiming the purpose is "for self-defence" would amount to a de facto repeal by a police chief (who has no legislative authority) rather than by Parliament. The argument is legally watertight, but the last judge hearing this case decided that social change had overtaken the legislation - it was not in the House of Lords, so it could have been taken further for a more definitive ruling. We do still have the right to arm ourselves for our self-defence. This nonsense of police arresting people for owning Taser guns is simply a violation of the law - by the police backed up by a judiciary refusing to apply the law.

Honestly, one of the tarts on the judicial bench claims that constitutional laws are so hard to repeal that the European Communities Act cannot be "superseded" by later legislation unless that later legislation "expressly" mentions an intention to repeal the European Communities Act, while another one of the judicial tarts is claiming a constitutional act (the Bill of Rights) has been superseded without express legislation. These judicial tarts don't bother getting their "story" straight - the answers are all predetermined, the rationale is ad hoc - we don't have the law any more.

Norman Dee

I am disappointed to see so many contradictions of your article without a single reply to what are many very valid points. Perhaps some of them are right, you won't and don't reply because like the rest of the political and journalistic population of the capital you don't actually give a toss what we think

Verity

djw 2009 - A superb summing up of everything David Cameron, the hundreds of unelected quangocrats, most MPs, and large swathes of the media stand for. Unalloyed greed ... for money and for power. Dave is greedy for a seat at the top table in Brussels, which is why he will never nay say them.

And Dennis Cooper, thanks for your contribution and Nicholas, too. Strong stuff. Excellent! At least they know we're on to them. They weren't quite clever enough ... and they underestimated us.

Gary Williams

This is why it was a mistake to cancel the promised referendum on the Lisbon stitch-up (in addition to the cancellation's having made Cameron look weak). Even if a referendum verdict would have been unenforceable, the fact that there was a concrete result, as opposed to airy opinion polls, would have clarified both to Continentals and to British Europhiles that British cooperation in their dystopian fantasy would be circumscribed and under constant reassessment. As centuries of history have shown, the Continent needs Britain more than Britain needs it.
Lacking a black-and-white referendum result, the UK's ability to negotiate op-outs of its choosing will always be heavily compromised - as we saw in the Chancellor's very first European meeting, when we were steamrollered by the Continental Left's anti-capitalism rabble-rousers.
Also, lacking the possibility of a referendum "No", Cameron cannot take as strong as stand as he should do against L-D's understandable although totally misconceived tendencies to get up close and personal with Continental decadence.

Rebecca S

The "British Bill of Rights" was never a serious option, in my opinion.. It tries to be all things to all people. You end up with this ludicrous charter that simultaneously protects freedom of speech and the press, yet
allows the government to return prisoners to countries that carry out torture.

As Fraser points out, a Bill of Rights that went less far than ECHR would always be junior to it. Yet consider the alternative - a Bill that went further. It would be a logical constitutional developement - after all both the US and Canada, based on the English system, have far stronger protections. For instance, a government official before the US supreme court has far less scope to ask to get away with petty violations on the grounds of public policy and proportionality than his British counterpart.

Which is perhaps the problem with the existing arrangement. Because of its caveats and qualifications, the ECHR is not seen as a fundamental limit on the power of the state over the citizen. If I assert my rights against the state, I can be told: "oh, but the state is in the clear because it was necessary in a democratic society on grounds of public policy". The criminal, facing the loss of liberty, is always at an advantage under our system simply because the loss of liberty is the one sanction which can rarely be justified. It is the one case where the courts are guaranteed to sit up and take notice. Perhaps what is needed then is a stronger Bill of Rights that vindicates the liberties of all, rather than the few.

Dennis Churchill

What if the majority of people who reply to the: “What laws do you want repealed” answer “the Human Rights Act”?

David Parker

Cameron (and Hague)knew full well that any promise to restore the supremacy of British laws over those of the EU could never be fulfilled so long as we remained a member of that organisation. Equally, he was also fully aware of the fact that repatriation of any powers was never a possibility, indeed he was always careful never to promise anything more than that he would use his best endeavours in this respect.

One is left with the inescapable conclusion that Cameron quite deliberately tried to mislead the British public over his proposed policies towards the EU. But, as is demonstrated by the result of the General Election, the majority of the public did not believe him.

It was not his EU policy itself which was responsible for his failure to win an outright majority, but his dishonesty in misrepresenting this and in treating the electors like fools. For the sake of trying to win power, however briefly, at any cost, he has now not only lost the confidence of the nation, but thrown a lifeline to a Labour party which would have been better left to drown.

strapworld

Having been out of the country during most of the election campaign and aftermath. I have been quite astonished by the almost unaminous view of my friends/family/associates whom I have always considered to be of the right wing of politics. They all welcome the coalition. They have said in different ways how pleased they are that life feels more sucure, knowing that hard times are ahead. They have confidence in Cameron and Clegg. They believe that this is a new direction which can only bring good for the country and its peoples.

They are rather sick of the old tories trying to stir the pot. The same old faces who should have been de-selected!

Me? I must say I find myself in agreement. I will give this coalition my support and best wishes.

After all the alternative is what? Balls, The Marx brothers or Harman! That makes it a no brainer does it not.

Let us all calm down and give the new administration a chance.

In2minds

A film Director, I've forgotten his name, once said "messages are for Western Union". I think signals are for railway locomotives. So sending an "odd" signal to other countries we are trying to pull into "our" orbit all depends upon the definition of 'our'. If it's like 'our partners' in the EU then count me out. I'm only thinking of us, by which I mean the UK. And I want out of the ECHR.

Naomi Muse

@Nicholas - like your assessment.

Why does Dominic Grieve not understand this?

Dennis Churchill

Another set of laws we could ask to be repealed are the ones binding us to membership of the E.U...

Fergus Pickering

But they won't, Denis. Most people like the Human Rights Act. They may be stupid. They may be deluded. They may not wash as you lot say. But that is their opinioon. They like the Human Rights Act. Getting rid of it would not be the popular move so many of you seem to think. Maybe it would be right. But unpopular. Unfortunately, only about 40% of the country is on the right (Tory+UKIP+BNP). A pity perhaps, but there it is.

Cuffleyburgers

I think you and Grieve have missed the point.

The "odd signal" is sent by the fact that the government's hands would appear to be tied by previous administrations - something we know is not allowed.

Therefore it is entirely reasonable to say that strasbourg does not have primacy in this or any other area.

As sovereign government we will enact those laws we deem necessary and desirable according to the common law and the culture of this country (which gave human rights, and modern democratic government to the world afterall), and europe can do what it likes within its own borders

Why is it so hard for the government to say this.

FFS. FFFS in fact.

Francis Hoar

Fraser,

What are you talking about re anonymous witnesses? Jack Straw *did* change the law in 2008 - in an absolutely disgraceful charade of a one day debate in House of Commons and another one day debate in the Lords. He did so with the connivance of both Liberal Democrat and Conservative front benches to whom the fundamental right not merely to face but to *know* ones accuser meant nothing.

Safeguards against anonymous witnesses are worthless - if you don't know your accuser you will be unable to investigate why he has said what he did, what his backgroud is, who he associates with. You will be unable to know what he has said in the past. You will be wholly reliant upon the State for any information you might have about his previous convictions.

And how on earth is this something that is desirable in a common law country but somehow prevented by the ECHR? As it happens, there is Strasburg caselaw directly at variance with the most recent British Supreme Court decision on anonymity that does guard against anonymous witnesses. But the principle is far more one of the common law world - it is established in the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution and affirmed in cases from the USA to South Africa.

Perhaps what this does show is that we *do* need a British Bill of Rights. Not to weaken the protections of the ECHR but to strengthen them by protecting fundamental common law liberties - jury trial, habeas corpus and against double jeopardy - that are given insufficient protection in the Convention.

Rhoda Klapp

strapworld, it would indeed be churlish not to give them a chance to deal with the economy and the labour legacy. It is inevitable that they must compromise their policies. But they do not have a mandate to fiddle with the constitution or with our rights, except to return them to where they were when the last unmandated shower fiddled with them. If they want a mandate, they know how to get one.

strapworld

Rhoda Klapp, with all due respect, I beg to differ. They do have a mandate. That is why we have to discuss alternative voting systems and a most definate change to the Lords.

Dennis Churchill

Fergus
Was that as a percentage of those that voted? What percentage of those that voted, voted Labour, LibDem and Respect—if that is how you describe the left. Of course then we have the none of the above who did not vote.

Edward Sutherland

God, it is all so bloody depressing. Yesterday, we had the spectacle of a supine bunch of MPs re-electing that fine upstanding Mr Bercow-hurrah for the new politics!. Today, we are told there's no prospect of deporting foreign terrorists intent on harming this country. I'm blowed if I know why I bothered voting Conservative.

djw2009

>>>>I'm blowed if I know why I bothered voting Conservative.

Edward Sutherland, you're getting what you voted for. Me, I didn't even bother voting - the best decision I've made in a long time!

Noa Zrk

At the heart of the debate about a Bill of Rights is a fundamental concern about who will be the source of sovereign power in the UK, Parliament or an unelected overseas body.

It is to the credit of Britain's citizens that they wish for that sovereign power to reside in their elected Parliament and the shame of their Parliamentarians that they have been and continue to be complicit in that progressive transfer and abdication of their sovereign duties and responsibilities.

John (Chichester)

Fergus Pickering: 'Most people like the Human Rights Act.'...

...NO THEY DON'T!!