The growth of gypsy camps is yet another reason why the Human Rights Act should be abolished

The Mail, UK/June 16, 2009

Farmers across Britain are finding their livelihoods under attack from illegal gypsy camps which are multiplying to an extent quite out of control as a result of legislation passed in the name of human rights.

Evidently some people need to be reminded that human rights in Britain existed before we signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights in 1951.

They certainly existed before the New Labour 1998 Human Rights Act. A rather more credible starting point would be the Magna Carta of 1215.

New Labour have been casually destroying our real human rights - such ancient liberties as trial by jury, presumption of innocence, habeas corpus, and the safeguard against 'double jeopardy'.

At the same time they have been piling onto the statute book new 'human rights' which are nothing of the sort.

The sanctity of private property is the basis of a free society, a fundamental human right, yet it has been under attack as part of the fraudulent 'human rights' agenda.

Tony Blair skewed the legal system away from protecting the rights of ordinary British people. In this project he was spurred on by the desire to be 'modern' and 'progressive'.

He was chivvied on by European Union bureaucrats and his barrister wife Cherie - who has done very well out of the burgeoning human rights industry.

Someone else who is doing very nicely out of it is a former Lib Dem MP called Matthew Green. He was defeated in his Ludlow constituency at the last General Election in 2005 and appears to be seeking revenge on the electorate.

Green has used the knowledge he acquired of the planning law to back travellers facing eviction from sites.

Before the Human Rights Act there were just under 300 illegal sites in England officially tolerated by the authorities. Bad enough you might think - especially if it was your land they were squatting on.

But by January this year that had quadrupled to 1,279. The total number of illegal sites more than doubled from 1,166 to 3,680.

This weekend I visited a hard working farmer in Dorset. He can't sleep too soundly at night as he has to listen out for gypsies raiding his diesel supply.

All the police will offer is advice on security so that the gypsies steal the diesel from someone else. My friend feels let down. He feels the law is not on his side.

'If you want to build a new home you have to get planning permission first. But if you are a traveller you can bend the planning law - building where you like thanks to the Human Rights Act.'

Article 8 of the Human Rights Act says that everyone has a 'right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.'

Sounds lovely. But councils use it as an excuse not to take enforcement action to clear illegal traveller encampments.

Instead they send abusive replies accusing those who object to planning permission of being 'racist'.

Tory leader David Cameron has retained the pledge from his predecessor Michael Howard that the Human Rights Act should go.

'Since the advent of the Human Rights Act, judges are increasingly making our laws,' David Cameron said in a speech last month.

'The EU and the judges - neither of them accountable to British citizens - have taken too much power over issues that are contested aspects of public policy and which should therefore be settled in the realm of democratic politics.

'It's no wonder people feel so disillusioned with politics and Parliament when they see so many big decisions that affect their lives being made somewhere else.'

Cameron was enraged not only by the Human Rights Act putting gypsies above the law but also over other scandals arising out of the Act - including allowing the killer of head master Philip Lawrence to escape deportation.

Some say that repealing the Human Rights Act won't in itself solve all these problems. That there are plenty of other rules coming out of the European Union that can facilitate perverse outcomes. Maybe.

But repealing the Human Rights Act would be a good start. Labour will portray such a move as 'reactionary' and being 'against human rights'.

Whether the electorate will agree with them is another matter.

To see more documents/articles regarding this group/organization/subject click here.