I don’t know enough about these cases tbh but from what little I do know it seems like the people involved appealed to the echr and the echr rejected their appeals on the basis they were groundless, not sure that’s the same as forcing them to admit their guilt
Which parts specifically?
The short version is that the police asked them to tell them who was driving when a car was caught on a camera. They refused on the grounds that refusal to incriminate oneself has been a basic tenet of our legal system since the Magna Carta.
The parts stopping our govt running the immigration system the way they want to is the most prominent example.
And then we vote them out and it gets fixed.
They can do that with or without the ECHR.
If there were even a fraction of a chance of a Conservative victory at the next election, then you might nearly have a point.
I think it’s more that people are fed up with a government that is so fundamentally inept at everything except corruption and fraud. if you want to talk about living off other peoples money there are no better examples than this government and their cronies. Eg nadine dorries, Michelle none, did Harding etc etc . The names I’ve mentioned are merely the tip of the ice berg. Look at those people who provided the barges or the asylum seeker hotels, ripping off the tax payer to the max with the aid or their Tory chums.
Supranational issues require supranational bodies. There is a good article in the FT today about how the UK leaving the EU, and of course cross border threats such as the pandemic for example, have just pushed EU countries into closer cooperation across the board. Yes, sometimes a case can be made for overreach, an intrusion too far into national competencies, but the ECHR hardly falls into that category. The UK's gradual descent into illiberalism and its constant eroding of its own citizen's rights will not be corrected by this government. Would you trust them to enforce those same ECHR rights? fudge no. They will not police themselves, just you, unfortunately.
Yes power corrupts and the wrong path may be taken, but a body such as the ECHR which is fundamentally about protecting rights and has an altruistic mission is not likely to stray far from the path. I agree power should always come from the people and there should be mechanisms of control and accountability, but let's cut to the chase. Why would the UK leave this organisation, one it played a central part in forming, if not to weaken those rights enshrined by its conventions? The sovereign tea argument for this is just a laser for gullible cats to chase. Don't be fooled by it. This is about watered-down rights for greedy clams to exploit.
Careful what you wish for. The last Labour government wanted mandatory ID cards and massively increased CCTV surveillance.