On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 16:17:21 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

The hard-of-thinking/Daily-Wail-gullible usually conflate the totally
separate European Convention on Human Rights, forgetting that the UK
was instrumental in creating that in the 1950s, and that the
much-loathed Human Rights Act merely allows breaches of the ECHR to be
prosecuted in British courts rather than having to be escalated to the
European Court of Human Rights. Strangely, none of them can ever point
to which articles of the convention they object to, either.

Interesting interpretation.

Where "interesting" = "accurate".

However I suspect that most objections to the "Human Rights Act" are in
fact to the UK act of 1998

Umm, yes, isn't that what you're replying to?

and act which makes it illegal

It already was, since 1953.

for any public body to contravene the ECHR unless explicitly supported
by national legislation.

The Convention restricts most articles with...
"such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a
democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection
of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights
and freedoms of others."

So - just to recap - which of the articles of the convention do you
object to?

Oh, and you do know that the only countries in the vaguely-geographical
continent which aren't legally bound to the convention are the Vatican,
Kazakhstan and Bieloruss, yep?