BRITISH POLITICS QUESTION

Was just wondering if there was anyone on here who would vote for Milliband or Cleggin the next election and if so why?

This is a genuine question and even though I don't think Cameron is the best I do feel ge is far and away the best out of a very very bad bunch!

Was just wondering if there was anyone on here who would vote for Milliband or Cleggin the next election and if so why?

This is a genuine question and even though I don't think Cameron is the best I do feel ge is far and away the best out of a very very bad bunch!

Jimbo, I would never vote for them two and even though I am not a Cameron fan, I would rather him than them two any time.

I really don't get this left or right argument or aligning yourself permanently to one party! For me I'm firmly down the middle and will vote for any party who will be the best for the country at that moment in time. Reading Clegg's comments this morning I really do wonder how many people in this county agree with him? Nearly everyone you speak to agrees that putting families back on the top of the agenda is a priority but he doesn't seem keen on the idea. Is he out of touch or do a lot of people really agree with him? I thought a lot of people would agree with Cameron the other day that this country needed to get back to Christian values but he was slammed in some quarters for saying it!

Was just wondering if there was anyone on here who would vote for Milliband or Cleggin the next election and if so why?

This is a genuine question and even though I don't think Cameron is the best I do feel ge is far and away the best out of a very very bad bunch!

voted Liberal Democrat last general election
and unless something dramatically changes i will vote Liberal Democrat in the next general election
the only party who are really concerned about human rights and civil liberties
and will note re-legislate to suit their political means

I really don't get this left or right argument or aligning yourself permanently to one party! For me I'm firmly down the middle and will vote for any party who will be the best for the country at that moment in time. Reading Clegg's comments this morning I really do wonder how many people in this county agree with him? Nearly everyone you speak to agrees that putting families back on the top of the agenda is a priority but he doesn't seem keen on the idea. Is he out of touch or do a lot of people really agree with him? I thought a lot of people would agree with Cameron the other day that this country needed to get back to Christian values but he was slammed in some quarters for saying it!

Spot on Jimbo.

People should vote for who they really feel is the best at the time, not the name of the party, because in my opinion gone are the days that the parties really stand for what they once did.

Was just wondering if there was anyone on here who would vote for Milliband or Cleggin the next election and if so why?

This is a genuine question and even though I don't think Cameron is the best I do feel ge is far and away the best out of a very very bad bunch!

voted Liberal Democrat last general election
and unless something dramatically changes i will vote Liberal Democrat in the next general election
the only party who are really concerned about human rights and civil liberties
and will note re-legislate to suit their political means

That's fair enough mate, but for me I think that human rights and civil liberties needs a massive overhaul! They are of course vitally important but I don't think they are protecting who they should be at this moment in time and I really don't trust the Lib Dems with that job under the current leadership.

I really don't get this left or right argument or aligning yourself permanently to one party! For me I'm firmly down the middle and will vote for any party who will be the best for the country at that moment in time. Reading Clegg's comments this morning I really do wonder how many people in this county agree with him? Nearly everyone you speak to agrees that putting families back on the top of the agenda is a priority but he doesn't seem keen on the idea. Is he out of touch or do a lot of people really agree with him? I thought a lot of people would agree with Cameron the other day that this country needed to get back to Christian values but he was slammed in some quarters for saying it!

Spot on Jimbo.

People should vote for who they really feel is the best at the time, not the name of the party, because in my opinion gone are the days that the parties really stand for what they once did.

My thoughts exactly Annis! I just don't understand it.

Was just wondering if there was anyone on here who would vote for Milliband or Cleggin the next election and if so why?

This is a genuine question and even though I don't think Cameron is the best I do feel ge is far and away the best out of a very very bad bunch!

voted Liberal Democrat last general election
and unless something dramatically changes i will vote Liberal Democrat in the next general election
the only party who are really concerned about human rights and civil liberties
and will note re-legislate to suit their political means

That's fair enough mate, but for me I think that human rights and civil liberties needs a massive overhaul! They are of course vitally important but I don't think they are protecting who they should be at this moment in time and I really don't trust the Lib Dems with that job under the current leadership.

civil liberties are not working because Tony Blair's labour government scrapped them in the pursuit of war in Iraq and terrorists
and now the Conservatives want to scrap the human rights bill
Liberal Democrats are the only party who have said that our rights are unbreakable and should never be changed

Tony Blair didn't water down Human rights, he brought that act in. Over the last ten years the human rights act has played a huge part in ripping apart some of this countries moral fabric. If legislated properly, and used in the correct manner, human rights are a powerful tool but right now they are not fit for purpose and are literally allowing people to get away with murder,as a former lawyer I've some unbelievable abuses of the hr act.

Plus while HR are important at this moment in time it is certainly not in the top of the list for what I will be voting for in the next election. First and foremost has to be the economy and Clegg is utterly incompetent in this area!

A good friend of mine was a director of Phones 4 U at 23 and ge is now chief executive of A major retail company at the age of 29!! He came from a broken home and his father died an alcoholic! He's worked his ass off to get to where he is with no favors off anyone. He's also a top bloke and a semi pro footballer. He's been asked to go into politics by the labour party. I hope he takes the opportunity as I think it's people like him who could really ignite this country. Career politicians are no longer fit for purpose IMO, people should have actually achieved something in the real world before going into politics!

Was just wondering if there was anyone on here who would vote for Milliband or Cleggin the next election and if so why?

This is a genuine question and even though I don't think Cameron is the best I do feel ge is far and away the best out of a very very bad bunch!

voted Liberal Democrat last general election
and unless something dramatically changes i will vote Liberal Democrat in the next general election
the only party who are really concerned about human rights and civil liberties
and will note re-legislate to suit their political means

That's fair enough mate, but for me I think that human rights and civil liberties needs a massive overhaul! They are of course vitally important but I don't think they are protecting who they should be at this moment in time and I really don't trust the Lib Dems with that job under the current leadership.

civil liberties are not working because Tony Blair's labour government scrapped them in the pursuit of war in Iraq and terrorists
and now the Conservatives want to scrap the human rights bill
Liberal Democrats are the only party who have said that our rights are unbreakable and should never be changed

Johnny do you agree that terriorists shouldn't be shipped out of the country then..?

ok ill ask a question instead of an answer (id make a good politician lol)
why did the government feel the need to scrap our civil liberties to fight terrorism?
to answer your question no i believe terrorists should be thrown out of our country as long as certain criteria are met:
1 it does not risk their human rights
2 they are originally foreign nationals
if sending them to their country of origin will breach their human rights they can sit in one of our prisons for the rest of their natural lives.
Before you mention illegal immigrants they shouldnt be in this country anyway and if they had valid reasons to be in this country as a refugee they would be here legally

Tony Blair didn't water down Human rights, he brought that act in. Over the last ten years the human rights act has played a huge part in ripping apart some of this countries moral fabric. If legislated properly, and used in the correct manner, human rights are a powerful tool but right now they are not fit for purpose and are literally allowing people to get away with murder,as a former lawyer I've some unbelievable abuses of the hr act.

Plus while HR are important at this moment in time it is certainly not in the top of the list for what I will be voting for in the next election. First and foremost has to be the economy and Clegg is utterly incompetent in this area!

A good friend of mine was a director of Phones 4 U at 23 and ge is now chief executive of A major retail company at the age of 29!! He came from a broken home and his father died an alcoholic! He's worked his ass off to get to where he is with no favors off anyone. He's also a top bloke and a semi pro footballer. He's been asked to go into politics by the labour party. I hope he takes the opportunity as I think it's people like him who could really ignite this country. Career politicians are no longer fit for purpose IMO, people should have actually achieved something in the real world before going into politics!

dont get confused between human rights and civil liberties
the conservatives have mentioned scrapping human rights
the labour government scrapped your civil liberties
both equally as important
and without them they create a totalitarian state which you dont want to be in and one Tony Blair was steaming towards at full speed while we praised him to do it and the conservatives are hinting at

Jonny - if someone is looking to murder thousands of people through terrorism and threaten our way of life why the concern for them? If they engage in such acts they know the penalty. Why should the British taxpayer fund their stay in jail if they are foreign nationals? The human rights act should not be there to protect one person who has the intention of murdering thousands! They should be tried in British courts and if found guilty after a FAIR trial should be sent packing!

I really don't get this left or right argument or aligning yourself permanently to one party! For me I'm firmly down the middle and will vote for any party who will be the best for the country at that moment in time. Reading Clegg's comments this morning I really do wonder how many people in this county agree with him? Nearly everyone you speak to agrees that putting families back on the top of the agenda is a priority but he doesn't seem keen on the idea. Is he out of touch or do a lot of people really agree with him? I thought a lot of people would agree with Cameron the other day that this country needed to get back to Christian values but he was slammed in some quarters for saying it!

Spot on Jimbo.

People should vote for who they really feel is the best at the time, not the name of the party, because in my opinion gone are the days that the parties really stand for what they once did.

I hear you there Annis, I wish people voted for the indiviual rather than the party as there are far too many MP's who seem to do f**k all for their area.

I will only vote for someone who comes near to what I believe in. If that means I wont vote because the choice given me is way off the mark so be it. To those who say I should vote regardless I say bollocks...had to get that off my chest.


Today I find all the parties are so off the mark of the people that I have practically given up on party politics. A French revolution is what I want. Lets get Blair sent of to a war crimes tribunial, send Clegg to the dungeons for being a typical politician y saying one thing then doing the other and finally just hang Cameron because he is too frightenly like Thatcher.

Jonny - I agree with you on civil liberties to an extent but definitely not on the same page on human rights. Each to their own. Always interesting to listen to different points of view. I'm open to changing my mind faced with hard facts and reasoned argument but at the moment I think the human rights act is an abomination

Was just wondering if there was anyone on here who would vote for Milliband or Cleggin the next election and if so why?

This is a genuine question and even though I don't think Cameron is the best I do feel ge is far and away the best out of a very very bad bunch!

voted Liberal Democrat last general election
and unless something dramatically changes i will vote Liberal Democrat in the next general election
the only party who are really concerned about human rights and civil liberties
and will note re-legislate to suit their political means

That's fair enough mate, but for me I think that human rights and civil liberties needs a massive overhaul! They are of course vitally important but I don't think they are protecting who they should be at this moment in time and I really don't trust the Lib Dems with that job under the current leadership.

civil liberties are not working because Tony Blair's labour government scrapped them in the pursuit of war in Iraq and terrorists
and now the Conservatives want to scrap the human rights bill
Liberal Democrats are the only party who have said that our rights are unbreakable and should never be changed

Johnny do you agree that terriorists shouldn't be shipped out of the country then..?

ok ill ask a question instead of an answer (id make a good politician lol)
why did the government feel the need to scrap our civil liberties to fight terrorism?
to answer your question no i believe terrorists should be thrown out of our country as long as certain criteria are met:
1 it does not risk their human rights
2 they are originally foreign nationals
if sending them to their country of origin will breach their human rights they can sit in one of our prisons for the rest of their natural lives.
Before you mention illegal immigrants they shouldnt be in this country anyway and if they had valid reasons to be in this country as a refugee they would be here legally

Thats were we would disagree as having being a long term visitor to another country (Australia) I signed up to conditions that had I convicted any criminal act then my visa would be cancelled and I would be returned to my country of origin. Its that kind of agreement which should be put into place here as visitors should earn the protection of the country they are a visitor of and not abuse it.[/quote]

but they are being protected
if you broke the law in australia you kiss goodbye to some of your civil liberties
now if Australia want to deport you as is their right
under the human rights bill if you can prove that going back to your country of origin would put your safety and you rights as a human being are at risk, Australia are honour bound to look after you but you would probably spend a long time in prison.

Jonny - if someone is looking to murder thousands of people through terrorism and threaten our way of life why the concern for them? If they engage in such acts they know the penalty. Why should the British taxpayer fund their stay in jail if they are foreign nationals? The human rights act should not be there to protect one person who has the intention of murdering thousands! They should be tried in British courts and if found guilty after a FAIR trial should be sent packing!

because i expect the same in return
human rights protect you as a human being
without them anything could happen
without human rights you could steal a bag of crisps from tescos
the police will arrest you torture you to within an inch of your life until you plead guilty to whatever crime they choose
and there is nothing you could do about it
a government could treat you anyway they deemed fit
and theres nothing they could do about it
I dont care about terrorists i hope they rot in hell
im more concerned about my rights
and if you get rid of the human rights act in the name of the war against terrorism the only people who will be punished is us.

ok ill ask a question instead of an answer (id make a good politician lol)
why did the government feel the need to scrap our civil liberties to fight terrorism?
to answer your question no i believe terrorists should be thrown out of our country as long as certain criteria are met:
1 it does not risk their human rights
2 they are originally foreign nationals
if sending them to their country of origin will breach their human rights they can sit in one of our prisons for the rest of their natural lives.
Before you mention illegal immigrants they shouldnt be in this country anyway and if they had valid reasons to be in this country as a refugee they would be here legally

Thats were we would disagree as having being a long term visitor to another country (Australia) I signed up to conditions that had I convicted any criminal act then my visa would be cancelled and I would be returned to my country of origin. Its that kind of agreement which should be put into place here as visitors should earn the protection of the country they are a visitor of and not abuse it.

but they are being protected
if you broke the law in australia you kiss goodbye to some of your civil liberties
now if Australia want to deport you as is their right
under the human rights bill if you can prove that going back to your country of origin would put your safety and you rights as a human being are at risk, Australia are honour bound to look after you but you would probably spend a long time in prison.[/quote]

I feel that had I convicted any crime during my time over there I knew the rules from the start, I broke them so I shouldn't be intilled to any protection from Australia whether or not my country of origin is safe or not. The host country should say 'you had your chance, you blew it, you'll on your own!!!'[/quote]

but thats not how the human rights bill was written and it is only a small part of it
but it needs to be maintained in whole
because if you start picking at it
it will eventually reduce to nothing
and the world will devolve into chaos where the only rules that exist will be what ever the guy with the biggest stick decides exist

ok ill ask a question instead of an answer (id make a good politician lol)
why did the government feel the need to scrap our civil liberties to fight terrorism?
to answer your question no i believe terrorists should be thrown out of our country as long as certain criteria are met:
1 it does not risk their human rights
2 they are originally foreign nationals
if sending them to their country of origin will breach their human rights they can sit in one of our prisons for the rest of their natural lives.
Before you mention illegal immigrants they shouldnt be in this country anyway and if they had valid reasons to be in this country as a refugee they would be here legally

Thats were we would disagree as having being a long term visitor to another country (Australia) I signed up to conditions that had I convicted any criminal act then my visa would be cancelled and I would be returned to my country of origin. Its that kind of agreement which should be put into place here as visitors should earn the protection of the country they are a visitor of and not abuse it.

but they are being protected
if you broke the law in australia you kiss goodbye to some of your civil liberties
now if Australia want to deport you as is their right
under the human rights bill if you can prove that going back to your country of origin would put your safety and you rights as a human being are at risk, Australia are honour bound to look after you but you would probably spend a long time in prison.

I feel that had I convicted any crime during my time over there I knew the rules from the start, I broke them so I shouldn't be intilled to any protection from Australia whether or not my country of origin is safe or not. The host country should say 'you had your chance, you blew it, you'll on your own!!!'

but thats not how the human rights bill was written and it is only a small part of it
but it needs to be maintained in whole
because if you start picking at it
it will eventually reduce to nothing
and the world will devolve into chaos where the only rules that exist will be what ever the guy with the biggest stick decides exist[/quote]

It may only be a same part but its the main part which people are concerned about hense why the tories want to change it and bring in a British bill of rights. Unfortunately all bills need to be updated every now and then and I would include the human rights bill in that. If people can't accept that then the country is goings backwards and not forwards.[/quote]

ok answer this question
if wanted kids
would you be happy to have to ask permission to have children
and the government would check your genetic make up to see if you had anything wrong with that would be passed down
test your intellectual capabilities to see if having your child would be cost effective for the government
because without the human rights bill thats one thing that would happen
and what gives Britain the right to dictate which international laws and bills they should and shouldnt follow

Jonny - we obviously have different points of view on hr in this country but at this moment in time I fail to see how it could be the main motivating factor for anyone to vote for a party! Surely the economy should be no 1 right now and the party who can deal with this area most effectively should be elected! To me everything else is a luxury and a sideshow until the problems with the economy are addressed

Jonny - we obviously have different points of view on hr in this country but at this moment in time I fail to see how it could be the main motivating factor for anyone to vote for a party! Surely the economy should be no 1 right now and the party who can deal with this area most effectively should be elected! To me everything else is a luxury and a sideshow until the problems with the economy are addressed

but human rights covers everything
its not just a get out clause for terrorists
one way to sort out our financial crisis
is take every penny off every citizen in your country and reduce the defecit
if you refuse to give your money to the government they will throw you in prison
if you still refuse they will torture you
if you still refuse they will put your wife and kids in prison and torture them
without human rights a government can do whatever they want to you
human rights and civil liberties regardless of whatever crisis a country is going through should always be its citizens main priority.

I really don't get this left or right argument or aligning yourself permanently to one party! For me I'm firmly down the middle and will vote for any party who will be the best for the country at that moment in time. Reading Clegg's comments this morning I really do wonder how many people in this county agree with him? Nearly everyone you speak to agrees that putting families back on the top of the agenda is a priority but he doesn't seem keen on the idea. Is he out of touch or do a lot of people really agree with him? I thought a lot of people would agree with Cameron the other day that this country needed to get back to Christian values but he was slammed in some quarters for saying it!

Spot on Jimbo.

People should vote for who they really feel is the best at the time, not the name of the party, because in my opinion gone are the days that the parties really stand for what they once did.

I hear you there Annis, I wish people voted for the indiviual rather than the party as there are far too many MP's who seem to do f**k all for their area.

Adam, I have to totally agree with you on that.

I really don't get this left or right argument or aligning yourself permanently to one party! For me I'm firmly down the middle and will vote for any party who will be the best for the country at that moment in time. Reading Clegg's comments this morning I really do wonder how many people in this county agree with him? Nearly everyone you speak to agrees that putting families back on the top of the agenda is a priority but he doesn't seem keen on the idea. Is he out of touch or do a lot of people really agree with him? I thought a lot of people would agree with Cameron the other day that this country needed to get back to Christian values but he was slammed in some quarters for saying it!

Spot on Jimbo.

People should vote for who they really feel is the best at the time, not the name of the party, because in my opinion gone are the days that the parties really stand for what they once did.

I would only spoil my vote putting an X through the lot of em...meaning I have turned out to vote but don't have any faith in any of the lying, cheating, self seeking bastards that are in British politics right now....if we all spoiled then they would have to rethink their stance.....much better than pitching a tent.

ok answer this question
if wanted kids
would you be happy to have to ask permission to have children
and the government would check your genetic make up to see if you had anything wrong with that would be passed down
test your intellectual capabilities to see if having your child would be cost effective for the government
because without the human rights bill thats one thing that would happen
and what gives Britain the right to dictate which international laws and bills they should and shouldnt follow

Johnny if you think that the British bill of rights would mean that people would have to ask the government for permission to have children then you are wrong. However I do feel that the government should tell people that they would limited the amount of children per family that they are prepared to financially support but thats another matter.

no i hope they dont
my argument is what would stop them if they chose to
if they throw out the international bill of human rights to create their own bill on human rights what stops them from re-legislating if they dont like it anymore
a British bill of human rights effectively leaves the British Population with no rights at all

ok answer this question
if wanted kids
would you be happy to have to ask permission to have children
and the government would check your genetic make up to see if you had anything wrong with that would be passed down
test your intellectual capabilities to see if having your child would be cost effective for the government
because without the human rights bill thats one thing that would happen
and what gives Britain the right to dictate which international laws and bills they should and shouldnt follow

Johnny if you think that the British bill of rights would mean that people would have to ask the government for permission to have children then you are wrong. However I do feel that the government should tell people that they would limited the amount of children per family that they are prepared to financially support but thats another matter.

no i hope they dont
my argument is what would stop them if they chose toif they throw out the international bill of human rights to create their own bill on human rights what stops them from re-legislating if they dont like it anymore
a British bill of human rights effectively leaves the British Population with no rights at all

The British people would stop them thats why we live in a democracy if people don't like something then we can vote them out during the next election. If creating some crazy comments like this to defend the indefensible clearly shows that liberialism is dead in todays world. Some would say that liberialism is like communisum in that its good in theory but completely useless in practise.

but you wouldnt be able to
if the government did something the population didnt like they will take away your right to vote, your right to protest
because they will re-legislate to suit them
hitler did it thats why the european bill of human rights was written
you are entering very dangerous territory and you really dont realise it
and your trying to lead this country down the same road hitler led germany down
Hitler got elected democratically then got rid of democracy because he persuaded the population to give up their rights and this is exactly what your asking the british public to do
Human Rights and Civil Liberties are there to protect you from the state if the state has direct control over your rights they can do what they want with them so in theory you have no rights

ok answer this question
if wanted kids
would you be happy to have to ask permission to have children
and the government would check your genetic make up to see if you had anything wrong with that would be passed down
test your intellectual capabilities to see if having your child would be cost effective for the government
because without the human rights bill thats one thing that would happen
and what gives Britain the right to dictate which international laws and bills they should and shouldnt follow

Johnny if you think that the British bill of rights would mean that people would have to ask the government for permission to have children then you are wrong. However I do feel that the government should tell people that they would limited the amount of children per family that they are prepared to financially support but thats another matter.

no i hope they dont
my argument is what would stop them if they chose toif they throw out the international bill of human rights to create their own bill on human rights what stops them from re-legislating if they dont like it anymore
a British bill of human rights effectively leaves the British Population with no rights at all

The British people would stop them thats why we live in a democracy if people don't like something then we can vote them out during the next election. If creating some crazy comments like this to defend the indefensible clearly shows that liberialism is dead in todays world. Some would say that liberialism is like communisum in that its good in theory but completely useless in practise.

but you wouldnt be able toif the government did something the population didnt like they will take away your right to vote, your right to protest
because they will re-legislate to suit them
hitler did it thats why the european bill of human rights was written
you are entering very dangerous territory and you really dont realise it
and your trying to lead this country down the same road hitler led germany down
Hitler got elected democratically then got rid of democracy because he persuaded the population to give up their rights and this is exactly what your asking the british public to do
Human Rights and Civil Liberties are there to protect you from the state if the state has direct control over your rights they can do what they want with them so in theory you have no rights

Yes you would, if any law was such a bad law then one party would see the unpopulaity of it and would act upon. Its then up to the people to vote them in. Thats democracy for you.

The only dangerous territory we are entering is continuing to bow down to Human Rights Laws which allow known terrorists to stay in this country!!!

ok get rid of government throw all the party leaders in prison
create a law to stop people from disagreeing with the government
Hitler did it he threw all his political opposition in prison calling them enemies of the state
your not getting it are you
everything your saying
voting against the government
protesting against government
using political opposition all rests on having rights that are above the government
otherwise there would be nothing you could do
eradicating the human rights bill would give more power to terrorists and no power to an innocent population.

But isn't the problem with the Human Rights Act the interpretation it is given by the Judges?

At the present time they conclude that a foreign terrorist or criminals have a 'right' to a 'family life' which is deemed more important than the Human Right of everyone else in society to be protected from these nutters.

As MG said in Austrailia you would be deported no matter what once you have committed a criminal offence. Hear you get a soft sentence and a life on disability benefits even after you have kicked 'the family' out.

The interpretation has to be changed so that the Human Rights of everyone else is considered also and not just that of the criminal or terrorist.

But isn't the problem with the Human Rights Act the interpretation it is given by the Judges?

At the present time they conclude that a foreign terrorist or criminals have a 'right' to a 'family life' which is deemed more important than the Human Right of everyone else in society to be protected from these nutters.

As MG said in Austrailia you would be deported no matter what once you have committed a criminal offence. Hear you get a soft sentence and a life on disability benefits even after you have kicked 'the family' out.

The interpretation has to be changed so that the Human Rights of everyone else is considered also and not just that of the criminal or terrorist.

the right to a family life has one meaning you have the right to get married, the right to have children
it doesnt say anything about having a wholesome family life
otherwise every woman who wanted a divorce wouldnt have a leg to stand when the husband gives his right to a family life
why this country lets them get away with it i dont know.
Youre human rights are your protected rights as a human being regardless of your worldly actions
giving away your human rights is the single most dangerous thing you can do

Was just wondering if there was anyone on here who would vote for Milliband or Cleggin the next election and if so why?

This is a genuine question and even though I don't think Cameron is the best I do feel ge is far and away the best out of a very very bad bunch!

If I had to then I'd vote Miliband cos I feel he is best for the public. If I can vote anyone, the I'd vote Monster Raving Lonny because politics is turning into a joke.

ok get rid of government throw all the party leaders in prison
create a law to stop people from disagreeing with the government
Hitler did it he threw all his political opposition in prison calling them enemies of the state
your not getting it are you
everything your saying
voting against the government
protesting against government
using political opposition all rests on having rights that are above the government
otherwise there would be nothing you could do
eradicating the human rights bill would give more power to terrorists and no power to an innocent population.

With comments like that it just shows that your liberial arguement is completely flawed in this day and age

how argue against
if you want to live in a totalitarian state you carry on
but if you get what you want ill go to Afghanistan and claim political asylum there because they would have more rights in there than i would in Britain

But isn't the problem with the Human Rights Act the interpretation it is given by the Judges?

At the present time they conclude that a foreign terrorist or criminals have a 'right' to a 'family life' which is deemed more important than the Human Right of everyone else in society to be protected from these nutters.

As MG said in Austrailia you would be deported no matter what once you have committed a criminal offence. Hear you get a soft sentence and a life on disability benefits even after you have kicked 'the family' out.

The interpretation has to be changed so that the Human Rights of everyone else is considered also and not just that of the criminal or terrorist.

the right to a family life has one meaning you have the right to get married, the right to have children
it doesnt say anything about having a wholesome family life
otherwise every woman who wanted a divorce wouldnt have a leg to stand when the husband gives his right to a family life
why this country lets them get away with it i dont know.
Youre human rights are your protected rights as a human being regardless of your worldly actions
giving away your human rights is the single most dangerous thing you can do

I think the Judicial interpretation is based on if the criminal/terrorist was forcably deported he would lose his 'right' to a family life.

However, I must congratulate you on your interpretation above because to me that makes much more sense.