Human Rights Act v British Bill of Rights

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8319703.stm

Keir Starmer, Director of Public Prosecutions says the Human Rights Act (HRA) works. He says it is not biased in favour of the criminal.

Shadow justice secretary Dominic Grieve's plans to abolish the HRA and replace it with the British Bill of Rights (BBR).

Well, firstly Mr. Starmer should know that any law that is perceived by the public to be biased or otherwise not in the public interest is by definition an unfair law. It doesn't matter if the law is fair in practice. The perception of bias is enough to warrant a re-assessment of the law.

Repealing and introducing a new, fairer law that gives and is perceived to give a balance in favour of the victim rather than the criminal is the right thing to do. I personally, and suspect most ordinary people aren't greatly interested if a criminal's rights are infringed. Criminals should not expect the same protection under the law, save that they receive a fair trial.

I am more than a little worried, however that the idea is a Tory one. It does make me wonder just what are they up to? It would be fairly easy to introduce draconian legislation we all agree with concerning criminals but that also criminalises the innocent.

Like the saying goes, be careful what you wish for. You might just get it!