A British constitution

originally posted by: speedie
a reply to: ScepticScot

Ok maybe not a perfect example, but my point being. In this country , you have to be very careful when it comes to self defense or you could yourself end up in hot water.

Self defence is always pretty hard to legislate for as individual circumstances can vary so much. I think in general the rules work pretty well in the UK.

a reply to: SerenTheUniverse

'gosh, i am sick of seeing posts like yours attacking the poster for stuff you may have read in other threads and not sticking to the topic.'

gosh, cornish you sly fox!

btw hope the jobs ok and you are living well.

flipflop.

Im not complaining too much, as you say, we are pretty lucky here and our laws work quite well.

Although if my house got robber by a few thugs, i would be scared to death of say defending myself with a knife in case i myself get sent to prison. This i feel is unjust as (correct me if im wrong) as in the states for example someone breaks into your property with violence in mind you can blow them away. In this country if you sprayed them with pepper spray, which surely isn't excess force, you can still be prosecuted as pepper spray is illegal.

originally posted by: SerenTheUniverse

originally posted by: Metallicus
Do you really expect a government to give you back rights you have allowed them strip from you? It won’t happen and any speculation is just an exercise in mental masturbation.

what actual rights do you have more than us? freedom of digital speech, it is free here face to face, so you can own an automatic firearm, we can still get shotguns and rifles, our cops don't shoot us dead like yours do, and i can cross the street anywhere i like if i deem it safe, won't go bankrupt if i get cancer either, i am glad i live here and not america.

I never said I have more rights and I have no idea what you are on about. I am saying once a government...any government...takes a right away from its citizens it isn't coming back. Maybe next time read what I say and not what you want to believe.

I think we are all aware that the changes to constitution impose because of the war on terror are here to stay.
We aint getting our liberties back, and decades from now it will all be forgotten where the law changes came in. They say its for our protection. When i drive to work, i;ve have noticed cctv and every traffic light junction and elsewhere at least every mile. Big Brother if defiantly watching us. I don;t let it worry too much as i love my country and have nothing to hide, but it sure is annoying. Just hope they don't decide people into conspiracy forums are terrorists.

a reply to: ApacheHelicopetr

I didn't know the Brits had a Constitution. I thought the king had divine rights to speak for God.

originally posted by: speedie
Im not complaining too much, as you say, we are pretty lucky here and our laws work quite well.

Although if my house got robber by a few thugs, i would be scared to death of say defending myself with a knife in case i myself get sent to prison. This i feel is unjust as (correct me if im wrong) as in the states for example someone breaks into your property with violence in mind you can blow them away. In this country if you sprayed them with pepper spray, which surely isn't excess force, you can still be prosecuted as pepper spray is illegal.

You could get prosecuted for using or possessing an illegal weapon.

You can use force to defend your self including lethal force. What you can't do is continue to attack the person after they are no longer a threat as that becomes retribution.

There are some grey areas for example I have told my daughter if she has defend herself if you get the guy down make sure he doesn't can't get back up and chase you.

However there are always going to be border line cases and the right way is for them be dealt with case by case rather than blanket rules.

To the OP.

As the UK is an old country and has a long body of law that makes up a de facto constitution. Most of your points are within some sort of law, or another, or would be impossible to implement and prosecute. To say that UK law has grown into a "monster" is wrong, although adding a constitutional law aspect may well be a massively complex legal exercise - possibly more complicated than unpicking the intrusive and incompatible European laws that seem to have appeared everywhere without anyone noticing.

Also, UK law is not set in stone - for example precedent-setting in common law. A constitution as detailed by the OP would be impossible to implement and constrain how UK law works and develops in practice, including the role of elected officials to develop law.

A simpler constitution could be produced that references legal principles already apparent within the body of law. That would not be too complicated.

A couple of examples...

1) freedom of speech , press and religion. The exception threating violence against an individual and liable. Freedom of relgion stops at radical hate preaching, FGM, involuntary conversions and other dangrous/illegal practices.

- Freedom of expression is within the Human Rights Act 1998, Article 10.
- Threatening violence is under the The Public Order Act 1986 amongst others e.g. Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004
- Hate speech is covered by a number of laws depending on the context, e.g. Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.
- FGM is covered under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 etc...

12) freedom from discrimination based on sex, race, disability or sexuality.

- This is covered by the Equality Act 2010.

21) Any UK citizen that joins a terrorist or other group involved in crimes against humanity shall be imprisoned for life.

- This goes against the way UK law is built e.g. taking sentencing decisions from an independent court system. The courts are responsible for determining the severity of a crime. Here are the sentencing guidelines for Crown Court cases and Sentencing specifically for terrorism

a reply to: Metallicus

I am saying once a government...any government...takes a right away from its citizens it isn't coming back.

A fair point and one that I more or less agree with.

Just curious though; do you think that we in the UK have had any of our rights taken away relatively recently or impinged upon?

a reply to: dfnj2015

I thought the king had divine rights to speak for God.

Don't be so silly.

The King is God incarnate.

We have a constitution, it's just uncodified (a collection of hundreds of bills including Magna Carta) rather than a codified one which is a singular document.

Being uncodified has both strengths and weaknesses. Archaic rulings are easier to make minor amendments to to keep them up to date with science and tech but much harder to remove or make larger amendments to as the British equivalent of the Bill of Rights is spread and enshrined over hundreds of articles and bills which would all individually need to be revoked or removed to strip people of their rights.

originally posted by: paraphi
To the OP.

As the UK is an old country and has a long body of law that makes up a de facto constitution. Most of your points are within some sort of law, or another, or would be impossible to implement and prosecute. To say that UK law has grown into a "monster" is wrong, although adding a constitutional law aspect may well be a massively complex legal exercise - possibly more complicated than unpicking the intrusive and incompatible European laws that seem to have appeared everywhere without anyone noticing.

Also, UK law is not set in stone - for example precedent-setting in common law. A constitution as detailed by the OP would be impossible to implement and constrain how UK law works and develops in practice, including the role of elected officials to develop law.

A simpler constitution could be produced that references legal principles already apparent within the body of law. That would not be too complicated.

A couple of examples...

1) freedom of speech , press and religion. The exception threating violence against an individual and liable. Freedom of relgion stops at radical hate preaching, FGM, involuntary conversions and other dangrous/illegal practices.

- Freedom of expression is within the Human Rights Act 1998, Article 10.
- Threatening violence is under the The Public Order Act 1986 amongst others e.g. Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004
- Hate speech is covered by a number of laws depending on the context, e.g. Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.
- FGM is covered under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 etc...

12) freedom from discrimination based on sex, race, disability or sexuality.

- This is covered by the Equality Act 2010.

21) Any UK citizen that joins a terrorist or other group involved in crimes against humanity shall be imprisoned for life.

- This goes against the way UK law is built e.g. taking sentencing decisions from an independent court system. The courts are responsible for determining the severity of a crime. Here are the sentencing guidelines for Crown Court cases and Sentencing specifically for terrorism

I think the point is that a constitution should restrict the ability to make law.

If we use freedom of speech ad an example it is protected under law, but that law can be as amended as easily as any other.

Having a formal constitution including basic human rights protects fundamental rights requiring a higher standard to be amended.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
I think the point is that a constitution should restrict the ability to make law.

That's a major disadvantage of a constitution in that it may inhibit the evolution of law. We can see an extreme example of this in the US with the "right to bear arms", where things are fixed in a bygone world, thus preventing sensible updating for the modern world. Personally, I am content with the uncodified approach. The Human Rights Act 1998 provides a good baseline if there was a push to codify a UK constitution.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: ScepticScot
I think the point is that a constitution should restrict the ability to make law.

That's a major disadvantage of a constitution in that it may inhibit the evolution of law. We can see an extreme example of this in the US with the "right to bear arms", where things are fixed in a bygone world, thus preventing sensible updating for the modern world. Personally, I am content with the uncodified approach. The Human Rights Act 1998 provides a good baseline if there was a push to codify a UK constitution.

Some things like right to free speech and right to a fair trial and due process should not ever need to evolve. They are rights that should be considered sacred and timeless.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: ScepticScot
I think the point is that a constitution should restrict the ability to make law.

That's a major disadvantage of a constitution in that it may inhibit the evolution of law. We can see an extreme example of this in the US with the "right to bear arms", where things are fixed in a bygone world, thus preventing sensible updating for the modern world. Personally, I am content with the uncodified approach. The Human Rights Act 1998 provides a good baseline if there was a push to codify a UK constitution.

Well the US constitution can be updated and the process is well designed and documented. It's a lack of support for changing it not lack of availability that is the issue.

The human rights act in the UK can be as easily repealed or amended as legislation on packaging materials or speeding fines.

As we are leaving the EU or protection of human rights is being eroded further without formal recognition in a proper constitution.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
As we are leaving the EU or protection of human rights is being eroded further without formal recognition in a proper constitution.

This is the hypothetical and panicky-fear-mongering. Considering the UK set the scene and essentially wrote the book on human rights. There is a converse view in that as a sovereign nation again we may be able to develop rights-based laws more appropriate for the UK, and which build on existing provisions. There's no evidence we'll go backwards.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: ScepticScot
As we are leaving the EU or protection of human rights is being eroded further without formal recognition in a proper constitution.

This is the hypothetical and panicky-fear-mongering. Considering the UK set the scene and essentially wrote the book on human rights. There is a converse view in that as a sovereign nation again we may be able to develop rights-based laws more appropriate for the UK, and which build on existing provisions. There's no evidence we'll go backwards.

It's neither hypothetical or scaremongering, it's a statement of fact. One of our levels of protection of our human rights comes from our membership of the EU (and other international organisations).

Leaving doesn't mean we lose any rights (with exception of those tied to EU membership) but it does mean they are less well protected.