A UK Bill of Rights?

You would have to get yourself into a high position in an oppressive Government in order to execute Execter City supporters!

Freedom of movement is an attractive suggestion if we were in Utopia. Movement without control over national borders does cause problems though and there are numerous current examples, and within borders even in the UK there are occasions when freedom of movement needs to be restricted to protect law abiding citizens like you and me DTG from those with criminal intent.

Assuming my above statement is correct in that we are joined by a common purpose to observe the law the right to silence will not be needed as it is only used by and is only of any use to the guilty. Innocent people speak volubly when falsely accused and assist their position greatly when doing so.

Just look at PB, never hesitates to put his position when falsely accused of crimes against football!

I agree with you that those things are pretty fundamental Dave, but let's not hold our breath. Few politicians would argue with most of them in principle, yet any politician by their very nature is an authoritarian at heart...otherwise they wouldn't be there!

Then there's the strange case of so-called 'libertarians' telling us they believe in hanging, whole-life prison tarrifs, proscribing drugs, banning cyclists, telling us who can withdraw their labour or join a union. Don't get me wrong, there may or may not be valid arguments for all of these things, I just wish those who made them accepted that it is their conception of order they believe in, not freedom.

I would say the 'Right to Common Sense'

Nobody in any position of power seems able to use it these days, preferring the 'slap a ticket on' and 'you prove otherwise', and if you can't; pay-up. It takes away any human interaction, and good-will and any feel by the person on the street that they have a voice.

When I was a mere youngster living in Exmouth I was told by my uncle that if I was riding my bike after dusk and didn't have lights to go on the pavement as, because of my young age, this was allowed and gave others the chance to see me and not knock me down.
So once, when caught-out cycling back late from my cousin's house, I did this. I found myself going down Rolle Street and straight up against the trouser leg of our local plod who had been watching me as I free-wheeled down the hill!
But there was no ticket given; no aggressive stance. He asked if I knew that what I was doing was wrong and I said no, explaining what I'd been told by my uncle.

And what did he do? He just remarked that it was a lesson learned and asked me how far home was. He then walked with me to the front door, explained the situation to my parents and left with a huge smile in my direction and a 'see you around'.

And do you know what? He did. Every time he came across me out in the town, or on the seafront on my bike or skateboard he'd wave or ask how things were. And he was like that to the adults as well.
And it wasn't just him but all the police in the town.

So, it may be said that I was a child and that different rules apply. But I say no, this 'common-sense' non-aggressive attitude is missing in all authority today. Make a mistake that is seen as an illegal act and there's the punishment, usually with a financial penalty. There is no room for maneuver. No room for negotiation or discussion.
Ok, so some might try it on and get away with it, but what the hell, we're not talking about murderers here.

I remember that situation as clear as day (or night!) and it has stayed with me as an example, unlike other such times (parking tickets where there is no indication of wrong-doing for instance).

Get back to the Right to Common Sense in our land and let people live without the stress of making genuine mistakes...

Not sure why. There's nothing particularly 'left-wing' about human rights. Many in fact would argue that the bestowing of 'rights' in exchange for security/peace/being left alone is an inherently statist or authoritarian concept to begin with. Sure, many arguments in this country centre 'controversially' around the rights of groups such as prisoners, asylum seekers and the mentally ill (particularly when the EU or 'Europe' bogeyman is thrown into the equation!), but people forget that our treatment of these groups is already authoritarian in the extreme. It is often taken as a given for example that the state has a right to be the ultimate arbiter as so what happens to these individuals, even if it is 'restrained' by so-called individual 'rights'.

More appealing to my mind is the view that individual autonomy is all that matters...or as the German philosopher Max Stirner put it: one goes further with a handful of might than with a bagful of right.

Not unbecoming to say what you think. I enjoyed reading it almost as much as I'm looking forward to Friday’s nuptials

I think that's the first time Lambeth has ever been described as a fluffy Utopia, I'll be sure to let my estate agent know . You and Aussie seem to have this view that we live in a country in thrall to the 'left' (whoever they are) and one that is overrun by immigrants and criminals. I live in South London, which believe it or not has its fair share of criminals and immigrants, yet London has a right-wing mayor, a right-wing Parliament and an economy that's largest single component consists of moving the money of millions of working people around the planet whilst being bankrolled by the taxpayer to do so. I understand the disgruntlement of the white working class about Labour's immigration policies, but these were driven by that party's neo-liberal economics rather than 'fluffy left-wing Utopians' - don't forget what the CBI and British businesses were saying just a few short years ago when they still saw the prospect of cheap foreign labour doing the work indigenous workers demand a fair wage for.

The 'human rights thing' is a hobby horse of certain (in my view, largely misguided) sections of the 'the left', but is by no means exclusively so. Its place in our judicial and legal system exists in most part to exempt politicians and decision-makers from taking difficult decisions whilst creating a sense that the power of the state is somehow constrained and tempered. At the same time these decision-makers and their friends in the press get to complain that if it wasn't for these human rights things would be so much better! If such a thing as 'human rights' did not already exist they would have to be invented - ask any former Home Secretary.

There is much discontent, but this stems not from airy-fairy liberals, but a narrow ruling elite and political class which runs things to serve its interests. The 'blame the lefties for it' game suits their ends perfectly.

Lambethgull

With the various paternity/maternity benefits, elf & safety, minimum wage legislation, equailty laws, & the cost of complying with shed loads of other official red tape there's no way you're going to manufacture anything cheaply here.

My belief is that the open border policy is more geared towards destroying national identities & any form of self Government rather than economic considerations. The single currency for example may be advantageous in advancing the greater political scheme of things but economically it's proving disasterous for many European nations.

I don't see much that's very right wing about either Parliament or Boris Johnson. Maybe they're just slow off the mark in repealing the left wing legislation that's slowly bringing this Country to it's knees. Mind you it is always refreshing to see them caught out by it themselves. I'm distinctly uneasy about the restraints imposed on individuals, the constant patrolling by the thought police, & the ease in which anyone can fall victim to accusations with little foundation.

Charged with racism for singing 'Kung Fu' fighting' within earshot of some chinese passers by....being told by police what songs you can & cannot sing at a football match in Scotland.... no wonder there's a certain satisfaction when the politicians are caught out by the very politically correct world that they themselves are so busy creating.
The Prime Minister calling a pin-stripe suit wearing lesbian "dear" opens him up to criticism & gives him a taste of the medicine the rest of us have to endure because of the PC crap he's allowed to remain on the statute books.

The East Europeans will continue to flood over in increasing numbers. They will continue to pick up huge state handouts, they will continue to be given a substantial number of any new jobs, however many are created, & if some of them don't get what they want you will hear about them being charged with forcibly taking it...even if they have to allegedly slaughter an old couple in a Wolverhampton bedroom in order to do so.

Britain will continue going down the drain, the British will continue to despair at all they see happening around them, but the 'human rights' of Macaej Kus,Wojciech Ostolski, & Lieneusz Bartnowski, will I'm sure, be ever so well protected.

www.birminghammail.net/news/black-country/black-country-news/2011/04/27/three-men-to-be-charged-over-murders-of-wolverhampton-pensioners-65233-28594271/#ixzz1Kjjy8q7S

I don't think issues of sovereignty matter a great deal to be honest. A state will find ways of imposing its will on its population, whether it is notionally answerable to supranational organizations or domestic human rights/health and safety legislation or not. Note that by 'state' I most certainly do not mean the expressed will of the population; this would require a properly democratic system of governance.



I'm as guilty as the next man for using 'left/right' terminology, but I think it's a conceptual error. The divide is between authoritarians and libertarians. This is why we see seemingly good and hard fought for rights and concessions (such as those relating to health and safety in the work place) used by politicians and bureaucrats to exercise and consolidate control and power. The ideological (as opposed to tactical) divide between almost all British political parties - and London Mayoral candidates - is wafer thin. Various interest groups may attach themselves to respective parties in an attempt to achieve gains, but the nature of our political process means such interests become assimilated, corrupted or irrelevant to the economic and power interests in which they eventually serve. Those arguing for national sovereignty, the repealing of legislation and a national borders policy make a tacit assumption that the state is a legitimate and impartial arbiter of such things; no consistent or honest libertarian could agree with such a premise.