The government is attacking the rule of law - we are losing our legal rights

[Legit]

In the news over just the last couple of days:

"Leading immigration lawyers have told the Guardian that increasingly hostile rhetoric from the home secretary is putting them at risk of being attacked as well as undermining the legal system.
On Sunday home secretary Priti Patel used a speech at the Conservative party conference to criticise lawyers who defend migrants, linking them directly with traffickers who help asylum-seekers to cross borders.
Patel said: “No doubt those who are well-rehearsed in how to play and profit from the broken system will lecture us on their grand theories about human rights."

and:

"The prime minister today broadened his government's attack on 'lefty human rights lawyers' by publicly accusing them of hampering the criminal justice process. The Law Society said his 'divisive language' puts lawyers and their clients at risk."

and:

"Lord chancellor Robert Buckland has revealed that the government is to commission an independent review of the Human Rights Act...the government will look at the broader aspects of our constitution including the balance between the rights of individuals and effective government."

and:

The government is also reviewing the right to bring a claim for judicial review (which can challenge decisions made by public bodies).

@Tellmetruth4

Damn, saw this after posting!

Didn't realise it's a troll, know far too many dickheads people that think like this for real, sadly. . .

@mbosnz. I almost fell for it too and was about to respond but then read it again. It didn’t seem legit upon second reading.

I do think that learning about separation of the powers, and why we have it, would be so useful.

I'm not going to feed a troll, but I do actually think it's important to address some of the claims made so people can see that they're wrong.

1. Judicial review in criminal cases isn't that common, not really. There are judicial reviews in that area, but JR is massively more common as a means of redress in non-criminal areas.

1. Judicial review is very hard to succeed in and the grounds are if the government has acted unlawfully, arbitrarily or irrationally. Elected governments break the law all the time, sometimes deliberately and sometimes through incompetence. We elect governments to govern lawfully. If they aren't doing so, whatever else they're doing, it's not democracy.

ProfessorSlocombe
I suppose it comes down to whether you'd rather live in a society based on laws or on public opinion.

Has there been any suggestion we would not remain signatories to the ECHR? I am surprised the EU is apparently demanding that as it's not an EU body.
Not saying I'd be surprised if this government was using the confusion to try and pretend the ECHR is an EU issue - but it really shouldn't be. Our membership considerably predates our EU membership.

Yes there has actually. Very much an issue on the cards.

Various right wingers have raised the issue of leaving over the last couple of years. People who want to leave see Brexit as an opportunity, since while we remained in the EU we were also required to remain part of the ECHR.

Nooo! I think ProfessorSlocombe was being ironic with that last post! Channeling certain sections of the press!

I think Nigel Evans MP might be worth bringing into this.

He's a fervid Brexiter Tory, Deputy Speaker, and also understands the need for a properly funded judicial system.

He only understood this after he was falsely accused and had to sell his business to pay for his defence; prior to that, he'd merrily voted to cut state funding of defence lawyers.

But he gets it now.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Evans

‘It’s completely wrong’: falsely accused Tory MP attacks legal aid cuts
Nigel Evans backed policy in 2012, then spent life savings defending himself in court
www.theguardian.com/law/2018/dec/27/its-completely-wrong-falsely-accused-tory-mp-attacks-legal-aid-cuts

"I’m a changed person now, in terms of Laspo and sympathy for all those who now have to go through the legal system without expert help, support and advice.”

He added: “I’m not just talking about those accused in the criminal courts like me, but everyone affected by Laspo. Parents going through the family courts, tenants fighting landlords, patients fighting hospitals and so on. Laspo is clearly not working. It needs to be overhauled.”

the government will look at the broader aspects of our constitution including the balance between the rights of individuals and effective government."

So the government will decide on how much power it wants over us all. Quis custodiet custodes

@Pepperwort

the government will look at the broader aspects of our constitution including the balance between the rights of individuals and effective government."

So the government will decide on how much power it wants over us all. Quis custodiet custodes

That couldn't possibly go wrong!

Indeed. I seem to remember that Brexiteers were all telling us very firmly that Brexit would be a way of increasing protections, not wiping them out as remainers feared. This is the UK after all and we managed to have protections before joining the EU, etc. I think it's important to remember that most people voting for Brexit did not want to start a fascist dictatorship, and most British people would not want it now.

The conflict between these kind of actions and the words Johnson is coming out with is remarkable. Not for the first time I think. Once again he shows he's either a liar or incompetent, to not fully understand the separation of powers versus his stated aims.

Once again he shows he's either a liar or incompetent,

Well it's not either is it?, it's both.

@CrappleUmble

Various right wingers have raised the issue of leaving over the last couple of years. People who want to leave see Brexit as an opportunity, since while we remained in the EU we were also required to remain part of the ECHR.

Not so. We are members of the ECHR courtesy of the European Convention on Human Rights which was proposed and promoted by Churchill and which we signed in 1950. We remain members after Brexit.

Sorry, I see that that point has been made already and CrappleUmble is presumably saying that that is what Brexiters erroneously believe.

Must learn to read thread first.

Probably not for long.
A common Brexiter strategy is to go for one thing, saying that of course other things will stay as they are. Then after Thing 1 has been got rid of, move on to Thing 2.
Eg - We''ll leave the EU but of course we'll stay in the Single Market.

@PerkingFaintly

Nooo! I think ProfessorSlocombe was being ironic with that last post! Channeling certain sections of the press!

MoonJelly the whole point of this thread is that the UK may decide to leave the ECHR.

We all know its seperate from the EU, and aren't confusing it with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Did you read my subsequent post, @IncandescentSilver?