Either remove terrorism laws or rewrite them to be exactly what a terrorist really is, not a vague definition that could be distorted into anything. The police can and do make this law in its current form The main reason for this change is common sense when a person or people who disregard Britain and individuals pose a threat to normal, working people in the British LPC and are considered terrorists who appear to be able to stay in the UK. Be a threat to you or me, because they say they will be hurt if sent back should be thrown away because our homeland is safer, it should not protect us. The second law is an elected official who make decisions in health care Lothian Health who do things without the full consent of the public, the whole area is a danger because of their decision rather than a public decision to close a traumatic accident and emergency on. Also putting our emergency services in greater danger, instead of possibly blocking ambulances for 10 minutes, could take 1 hour, maybe more, if with the wisdom of unelected officials, no mames put people at risk in West Lothian. While there are a number of laws that I would like to see repealed, I think there is a problem in society that needs to be addressed first. There is no point in tinkering with laws until you have a classless justice system. Until all members of our society are treated equally in the eyes of the law, you will only change laws that affect a particular segment of society. There is strong evidence that in our legal system, the poorer you are, the more likely you are to receive a prison sentence, while if you are rich, you have the option of community service and a fine (the most extreme crimes are exempt from this rule, such as murder).

If ordinary people had committed the fraud we saw in the spending scandal, they would have been sentenced to jail, instead, everything is described as “mistakes” or “honest mistakes.” The locals know that this is not true, but they see our “honourable members” getting away with a slap on the wrist. While we have a society that has one rule for the rich and another for the poor, you will have a hard time earning the trust and respect of the people necessary for any justice system to work. We also appreciate your opinion on what a project might consider. For example, we could look at the regimes of other countries and determine whether the buyer`s prudence principle, which requires each buyer to consider title, is the appropriate starting point for buying a home. A project could also explore the role of technology in the home buying process and determine if there are barriers that change processes and procedures, as has been the case with other transactions. (96) The Government remains committed to the rights set out in the Convention which the United Kingdom signed in 1950. We also want to ensure that these rights are protected in a way that is not open to abuse, that respects areas of public service delivery that should be decided by front-line professionals or elected legislators, and that enjoys public trust. 155) These issues may also include issues of limited public funding, which require debate at the political level by elected representatives accountable to taxpayers.

Litigation by lawyers in a courtroom is often a narrow lens through which inherently subjective and values-based public interest issues can be resolved. Our courts are experts in jurisprudence. However, they have neither the capacity, nor the resources, nor the democratic mandate to pursue more comprehensive policies. While much of the problematic case law cited here relates to services provided in England, where responsibility for those services is transferred, the principles at stake are equally important to respect the democratic role of devolved legislators in allocating resources or shaping policies within their jurisdiction. The principles underlying our proposals are therefore relevant to the whole of the United Kingdom. We believe that a number of issues merit further study, which could be addressed in a separate project. First, the appropriateness of the powers to search electronic devices that do not depend on premises or to consult electronic data directly. Secondly, the application of sections 19 § 4 and 20 § 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which allow a police officer to require the production of electronic data accessible from the premises. Third, examine whether further work is needed to regulate data extraction equipment to take advantage of consensual data mining from the devices of complainants, witnesses and others currently before Parliament in the Police, Crime, Criminal Crime and Courts Act. I want to see the Human Rights Act recast and renamed the Human Rights and Responsibilities Act. The focus should be on your responsibilities which, once fulfilled, entitle you to your rights. If you don`t live up to your responsibilities, you can`t expect to have your rights.

Far too many people “know their rights”, very few understand their responsibility, it is a failure of existing legislation and needs to be corrected. They, the government, will choose the laws it wants to change from all the ideas submitted, and then say that we have listened to the public and acted. Each Government is aware that by signing the Convention, it is putting itself in a situation where it may be necessary to amend national laws and practices in order to avoid various freedoms that the Convention was created to protect. What a government cannot bargain for is that it faces significant difficulties and costs because of the obligation to pursue certain social or economic policies that it may not fully support. While this is not a conclusive objection to the Court`s application of the principle of effectiveness to further develop the law and identify positive obligations in the Convention, it certainly calls for caution in this approach. [Note 25] 82) The Canadian Charter gives the courts the power to order a remedy for Charter violations. In one case, it was concluded that an individual could theoretically claim compensation under the Charter, but that the common law doctrine of limited immunity strikes a balance between rights and effective government. [Footnote 37] In that case, the judge concluded that laws must have full force and effect until they are declared invalid, and that damages can only be awarded if the government`s conduct under those laws is manifestly wrong, in bad faith or abuse of power.

A controversial set of amendments to police, criminal, penal and judicial law, which have yet to be approved but could come into force in 2022, would allow the government to stop and search protesters without suspicion, making “detention” a crime. 48) There is another important distinction between “monist” and “dualist” countries. In monistic countries, obligations under international law apply directly in their national law: no separate legislation is needed to transpose them into national law.