The sun agrees with scrapping the HRA, then uses the HRA for protection
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/06/the-sun-human-rights_n_5938390.html. The Sun has been left red-faced after calling for the abolition of the Human Rights Act - only to have to rely on it just days later to protect its journalists.
The tabloid has launched legal action against the Metropolitan Police after officers seized the phone records of political editor Tom Newton Dunn to identify his anonymous police source who tipped him off about the Plebgate scandal.
The tabloid has launched legal action against the Metropolitan Police after officers seized the phone records of political editor Tom Newton Dunn to identify his anonymous police source who tipped him off about the Plebgate scandal.
0
Comments
And the most vulnerable organisations are going to be the news media...
And people still think this is merely a right-wing government.
God forbid any of THEIR rights are every infringed though - then we're all the first to know about it.
These dull people want to have their cake and eat it.
You saying that The Sun has never criticised anyone who has used the HRA?
And people can draw their own conclusions about their selection criteria.
Um no. It's pretty stark hypocrisy.
If you don't support something, to then go and use it can be nothing but hypocrisy.
Hypocrites
No it isn't. You may think the police are a bit crap but they are the only show in town if you are burgled.
To be a hypocrite you need to claim a false virtue, You are only a hypocrite for using something if your stance is you wouldn't use it not that your stance is that it shouldn't exist.
No I'm not but that is not what was alleged.
However I suspect that the criticism is generally directed at the legislation.
It is also quite feasible to oppose legislation because you find parts of it deeply flawed but have no problem with other parts or that you consider that it is flawed because in can be misused,
Well of course that will rightly be chucked at the Sun every time they whine about the HRA from here on in.
Why is it ?
You have to use the laws that are available. And anyway the Conservative proposal is only to do away with the HRA and make British courts the final court on human rights law. What is wrong with that, you will still have human rights but it will be British judges that enforce them not jurists in the Euro courts many of whom aren't legally trained but are political appointments
private conversations are meant to be that, forget they are Journalists, do we really want the state to have the right to take away the right to private conversations.
Primary legislation brought in by the Labour party is responsible. I don't see how this is an article 8 case to be honest.
Not sure that covers a journalist doing a job in a public place. Plus the state will just claim national security.
The role of the state and the press should be defined in law, not by some judge interpreting human rights.
The journalist was hardly dragged away by the Gestapo never to be seen again and his family refused any information on his well being etc. That is what article 8 was meant for. Still work for Shami & Co. I suppose.
Now that is were the law should be tight, not enough for the state to claim national security as that is just wide open to abuse, china russia and other counties had laws like that. Need to prove a risk to a judge or judges that there is a risk
Well that was how things worked before Labour and RIPA.
You know e what hypocrisy means? British courts have failed on rights previously and having HRA gave a lot of rights that english courts hadn't
That's like saying the sky isn't blue. Technically it isn't, but people sure as damn see it that way.
I utterly reject that.
Still as you seem to think that is the case would you like to back up your argument with some examples, say a dozen of each ?