Have you ever wondered why we went so blindly in the Human Right Act?

If you ever wondered why have we spent so much money and time on Human Rights think no more because the answer is very simple. Tony Blair took us lock stock and barrel into the Human Rights Act accepting all that came with it and costing the UK a small fortune? Was this because he was devoted to Human Rights and he thought we should champion it. Think again is was personal finances that was at the bottom of this prior to going head on into Human Rights dear Mrs Blair's Law firm decided to specialise in yes you have it Human Rights. You may feel this is insider dealing nd you would be very right the sad news is since dear Tony left No 10 his wife's law firm is not doing so well. The Blair's have made millions out of the Human Rights act. Please read the link for a more detailed report. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1051548/Cherie-Blairs-law-chambers-lost-business-Tony-left-No10.html I am not saying I agree or disagree with the act what I am saking is do you feel Mr Blair accepted the act to make a quick buck. And did you read the link? Also as I have read the act to me it does see some including baristers are exployting the act and using it in a bid to get clients off charges and we all know that is not the intent of the act.

Public Comments

1. I think if you did a poll, the great majority of people would say they support Human Rights. Very few have anything to gain from it, except pride. Sometimes people do the right thing just because it's right.
2. I wonder a great deal about most of the decisions that "our leaders' have made. It seems that they ignore any reasonable arguement and just run blinkered from one bad choice to another. The really worrying thing is that Mr Cameron does not seem to be wired up properly either. I know this may seem stupid,but the only 'leader" who ever makes any sense is Boris Johnson.
3. Nice rant. Completely wrong, but still, a nice rant.
4. have you read the act . i think you should its the only protection the brits have ever had . open your eyes and read it
5. I don't think that we'll ever get to the bottom of it, as the real discussions would have been at Davos and doubtless all kinds of attractive promises were made to Tony Blair if he did as the others wanted. Perhaps I am being unfair to the man, but he always struck me as someone before all else keen to feather his own nest and to achieve prestige on the world stage and if it meant sacrificing the good of his country -- well, that is the price one must pay. Once he had plunged us into the red, he neatly took off and left Brown to continue the task amid growing unpopularity. Other European States didn't swallow the Human Rights legislation hook, line and sinker, but introduced important reservations to protect their interests. We are now facing an even worse horror in the Equality Bill, which is designed to make quavering cowards of us all lest we offend fellow human beings who just happen to be different from us (which is inevitably going to be the case). http://www.equalities.gov.uk/equality_bill.aspx What happened to the sentiments of "Rule Britannia", which we would sing with such gusto? Maybe that too will be outlawed as being too jingoistic and offending non Brits!
6. The problem with relying upon the Daily Mail is that it is not really a newspaper. It's an opinion sheet, and therefore the coverage you get is tailored to the DM's world view. The simple fact is (and this does not appear I notice in the article) that the HRA applies to all European Countries who are members of the EU. all of them. The Act overrides national laws which are inconsistent with it. Hence - for example - Turkey must abolish the death penalty before joining the EU. Therefore the HRA was applicable to the UK since 1974, long before the Govt introduced it into national law. Before that happened, the UK courts had to declare whether legislation was compatible or incompatible and the whole justice system was getting gummed up waiting for declarations of compatibility. All the Govt did was simply and streamline the system. Now to use the HRA as a stick with which to beat the Blairs is a common DM hobby-horse but is simply boll0x. Mrs Blair does not have a law firm, for a start, she's self-employed. In fact she specialises in Employment Law and Public Law and was appointed QC in recognition of her specialism before Tony came to power. These areas of law inevitably contain some elements of human rights issues, but in reality very, very few. The numbers of actual 'human rights cases in the whole of the UK annually is a fraction of a fraction of 1%. Most HR decisions were made years ago. Cherie Booth QC does not depend on the HRA for her income any more than I do. A tiny fraction of her cases involved the HRA, probably the same as most barristers in her area of law. The suggestion that barristers are 'exploiting' the Act to get clients 'off charges' betrays such a fundamental lack of understanding as to: (i) the law (ii) the barrister's role in the legal process; (iii) what the court's role is, and; (iv) the whole concept of human rights ... that I don't know where to begin. All I will say is that the HRA was the greatest single piece of law to encompass and codify individual freedoms and liberties since the Magna Carta. Anyone who fails to understand that has been reading too many Richard Littlejohn columns.