How will it clamp down on immigration?

Mmmmm. Kind of. But the next election might be quite difficult for the current government to win. Yes, dumping the ECHR will be a vote winner, but only with certain voters. It also may depend on what is proposed put in its place. I just think this policy is a bit of a hostage to fortune. They've got a difficult enough task as it is without taking on this one.

It wouldn't. I can't see that particular argument going anywhere.

First of all a Brexit that mainly favours the banks and multinationals financially, then leave the Human Rights Court.
Planet Tory, red in tooth and claw.

What I meant was that opting out of the ECHR and having a Bill of Rights that made the UK unattractive to EU migrants - future ones as well as those of us here already, would be a votewinner in the current climate.

How possible or likely it is, I have no idea. But imagine if May or Farage campaigned on banning migrants from using state services like housing. That would go down well.

Without the ECHR to stymie such legislation, it could be possible.

If a government wants to clamp down on immigration, then they can simply clamp down on immigration. Once we've left the EU, they can restrict it as much as they like - they don't need a watered-down Bill of Rights to deter immigrants.

To deport foreigners already here we do. I think it is the ECHR that has repeatedly stopped the UK from deporting people.

Hardly, as we deport thousands of people every year who have no right to be here. The ECHR has only been involved in a handful of such cases, and even Abu Hamza was extradited eventually.

Our own courts have stopped some too.

I did not mean it stopped all deportations as that is obviously not the case.
It does however prohibit lots due to protecting people's right to not be killed to right to a family life.

.... like you expect us to do with you, or pay attention to some spurious link posted.

"Human Rights" has been a scam. It's been a clever trick as it's hard to argue against something that sounds such a fundamentally good thing, but in actuality, all its done is make a lot of lawyers very rich, and make life more unpleasant for decent law-abiding people.

Has it, how much do people really know about the human rights act ?

No it hasn't. Clearly you don't know much about human rights.

So which of YOUR human rights are you happy to lose?

Here's the list for you to choose from. Pick as many as you like to give up.

Article 2 Right to life
Article 3 Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
Article 4 Freedom from slavery and forced labour
Article 5 Right to liberty and security
Article 6 Right to a fair trial
Article 7 No punishment without law
Article 8 Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence
Article 9 Freedom of thought, belief and religion
Article 10 Freedom of expression
Article 11 Freedom of assembly and association
Article 12 Right to marry and start a family
Article 14 Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms
Protocol 1, Article 1 Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
Protocol 1, Article 2 Right to education
Protocol 1, Article 3 Right to participate in free elections
Protocol 13, Article 1 Abolition of the death penalty

Yes criminals like this couple should not have the right to use human rights laws should they. Human Rights Act used to stop an older couple being seperated
By British Institute of Human Rights On 06/02/2010
Mr and Mrs Driscoll had lived together for over 65 years. He was unable to walk unaided and relied on his wife to help him move around. She was blind and used her husband as her eyes. They were separated after Mr Driscoll became unwell and was moved into a residential care home. Mrs Driscoll wanted to move to the home with her husband but was told she did not meet the criteria used to by the local authority to allocate places.

Speaking to the media, Mrs Driscoll said ‘We have never been separated in all our years and for it to happen now, when we need each other so much, is so upsetting. I am lost without him – we were a partnership’.

Human rights experts and older people's organisations pointed out that this was a breach of the couple's right to respect for their private and family life (Article 8), protected by the Human Rights Act.

A public campaign launched by the family, supported by various human rights and older people’s organisations and the media, used these human rights arguments to convince the local authority to reconsider its decision. As a result Mrs Driscoll’s needs were reassessed by social services, and she was offered a place in the same care home as her husband.
More Case Studies from British Institute of Human Rights. You see the human rights act is alot more than about criminals. More cases like this here if you want to read . https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...tyE04azw8eBtkw

But that still happened even with the human rights act in place!

There's no reason we can't cherry pick the good bits of the HRA act but omit the bad stuff such as criminals being able to sue the police/prisons.

So you want the police and other above the law ? Surely you can only sue people if they have done some thing wrong. Do you think you can cherry pick which people human rights apply too ?

Criminals who have no respect for the human rights of others should not be able to hide behind the HRA when it suits them. Do you think it right that prisoners should be able to sue the prison service for not getting free drugs, or not being happy with the standard of prison food, which they get for free?

And do you have any links about the things you have said ( free drugs or standards of prison food ) would love to read these cases. So you would not have a problem with the police or prison service being allowed to abuse people, because it does not matter as these people dont have human rights so we can do what we like to them