He still needs to let us know what problem he intends to fix by doing this. It’s a PR stunt by someone who has worked in PR. Change!
The provision banning the death penalty is folly. Plus Labour after governing for thirteen years is well past the time to go. Hopefully Mr. Cameron will revitalize Britain and be a visionary leader in the mold of Thatcher or Reagan.
On that I am happy to agree.
Why?
Since those who take life should have their own taken away.
Should we be willing to also execute those innocent people who will inevitably be mistakenly convicted of such a crime? I mean, in those terms, the results of a mistaken killing later found out would be the killing in turn of (depending on how you apportion it) the executioner, the judge, the jury, etc…
Except that Britain has already ratified the European Convention on Human Rights, so the death penalty is effectively banned in Britain except during wartime or under “imminent threat of war”.
Nobody had been executed in Britain since 1964.
Since this is a thread about the election I’ll stay way from addressing the issue itself but throw in my opinion about how it relates; my view is, it doesn’t. No major party is calling for its reintroduction, it would probably be electoral suicide. Anecdotally (stats I’ve been able to find seem to be contradictory, but most place support at around or below 50%) I don’t know anyone besides the ‘hang them and flog them’ brigade which seriously want it reintroduced, it’s got rather an association with this guy. Plus the UK would have to withdraw from the EU, which is a whole other bag of worms.
Not anymore than a person who accidentally shoots a mailman, mistaking him for a robber.
Well they ought to abolish that too until a more reasonable human rights bill is drawn up.
Er, such a person might well open themselves up to a manslaughter or even murder charge. Did you mean your answer to be agreement?
Edit: Also, we call them “postmen” here. Fact of the Day! 
Which is to say, one which matches your views? :rolleyes: The death penalty is an anachronism. The civilized world is moving away from it. Get over it.
Well lawsuits for them should be possible but that’s about it.
Perhaps they’re the ones in the wrong. Have you ever suspected that?
Yes. When I was about your age I thought death sentences for capital crimes were the most obvious concept imaginable.
Then I grew up.
Presumably you don’t mean for “them”, because they will be dead. Lawsuits for the family, perhaps you mean? But the person accidentally shooting the postman isn’t simply open to civil charges, but criminal ones. Hence the manslaughter and murder points I brought up. It seems very odd to me that you’re so very gung-ho about killing killers sometimes, and then open to lawsuits at the most for others.
Anyway, back on topic, I think my big fear with the potential new human rights stuff is that because inevitably it’ll be controversial (and with what could well be a hung or close parliament, even worse than normal), it’ll be tricky to repeal and then pass a new one. I’m worried that they might well be split to make them easier to work with - leaving the worrying point that we might have no central overarching selection of rights at all. I don’t really look forward to coasting on lesser legislation.
I am hugely tempted to vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party. Getting the rest of Europe to join the pound really does sound like the way forward to me.
Otherwise, it has to be Lib Dem. Labour has proven incapable, and the Conservatives have far too many policies I fundamentally disagree with.
He’s more of an Obama than a Thatcher. Thatcherites would likely class him as ‘utterly wet’.
Really? There was a pretty cool guy who lived 2,000 years ago. He said things like forgiveness were important and turning the other cheek. I think he also said something about only people without sin injuring a condemned man.
Think his name was Heyzeus.
The problem is not the act itself, but the lawyers that twist those rights in order to gain unreasonable benefits for people.
Pick up any daily newspaper (broadsheets included) in the UK and it is almost inevitable that there will be at least one article with someone claiming that x is an infringement of their human rights.
I think that our rights need to be protected in law, I’m not sure that the human rights act is the right tool to do it. IIRC this law was put into place to prevent things like war crimes not to allow someone a payout because their internet connection was out for a couple fo days.
Weren’t all of these already long traditions in the UK anyway? I can’t see anything guaranteed by the act that wasn’t already a routine part of British life. Ironically, Freedom of Expression in the UK has been curtailed far more in the subsequent years since the act was introduced due to the War on Terror.
He desperately wishes he was like Obama; hence the “change” meme. There was also a point in which he invited comparisons to Tony Blair, but given that Blair is pretty much reviled by everyone in the UK these days he’s gone very quiet about that.
Completely agree. And sadly if you’ve ever seen Nick Clegg standing near him, Clegg looks (physically) like a generic version to his name brand. Even wetter.
On another note, the Conservatives have put up one of these near my house, which has made me very angry. I’ve had quite enough of politicians trying to frighten me into voting for them, thank you. “Vote Tory or criminals will eat your children! Booga booga!” Argh…