Coffee House

We need a British Bill of Rights – so we can hear less from the likes of Keir Starmer

13 October 2013

10:32 AM

13 October 2013

10:32 AM

In his five years as Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer  has shown a striking appetite for (self-) publicity and given the job a higher profile than ever. He’s just informed the world, from Andrew Marr’s sofa, that he’s opposed to plans by the Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, to tear up the egregious Human Rights Act which is playing havoc with the English justice system.

I can see why he’s alarmed: the confusion caused by superimposing European law on English law gives huge power to people, like him, who adjudicate. It has encouraged, in England, the emergence of American-style judicial activism. And the confusion elevates people who should be legal technocrats, like Keir Starmer, into people who sit on Marr’s sofa and tell us why they have decided (for example) that the law prohibiting gender-based abortion should not be enforced.


Here’s what he had to say:-

Mind you, it would have been equally inappropriate for him to cheer on Grayling’s plan for a British Bill of Rights. The correct response to Marr’s question is that, as DPP, he is paid to enact the law as passed by democratically-elected government – rather than divest himself of opinions on what those laws should be. His intervention has, however, reminded us why we need a Bill of Rights. Rule of law is becoming rule by lawyers, as Harry Mount argued in a recent Spectator cover story. The laws of the land should be decided in Parliament by elected politicians, not by barristers like Starmer and the sooner a Bill of Rights makes this point, the better.


Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • AeronPage

    Does anybody actually realise that there is a Bill of Rights (1688)

  • nick

    Starmer is useless!

  • Jacques Protic

    To understand Human Rights in the British context one
    needs to look at Wales. The Human Rights and Equalities Commission for Wales
    has lost the remit to handle any issue that involves the Welsh Language and
    then the sole arbiter is the Welsh Language Commissioner in the shape of Mari
    Huws with apparent lifelong hatred of anything English and Englishness and a lifelong
    member of Welsh Language Society a minority movement with a history of criminal

    In other words, if anyone thinks he or she is
    discriminated upon for not speaking Welsh or being denied public employment he
    or she must refer the matters to the Welsh Language Commissioner whose principal
    duty is to ensure no Welsh speaker is ever denied the God given right to speak
    Welsh anywhere in Wales (A bit akin to religious police you find in the Middle

    In the post devolution Wales, English speakers (80% of
    the population) have no rights to public employment unless they are fluent in
    Welsh and also have no rights to educate their children through the English language.

    In primary schools 100% Welsh language immersion is
    practiced in many parts of Wales, whilst for the time being in border Counties,
    children lose on average 50% of the available teaching time learning a language
    that most kids have no interest in and never use it outside the classroom and
    end education socially and academically damaged – HUMAN RIGHTS – The British Way
    (More information available on!

  • HookesLaw

    He or his dept would have to adjudicate on a UK bill of rights surely?

  • Martin Jennerson

    Of course he loves the human rights act, Labour-supporting lawyer.

  • bwims

    Why was this Liebour crony kept in post after the last General Election? Proof again that there is no difference between Lib-Lab-Con. Vote UKIP!

  • bwims

    If you want to get rid of the pernicious Yooman Rights lawyers, Vote UKIP

  • Toby Esterházy

    A British Bill of Rights would also ultimately be ended up being exploited to the full by illegal immigrants, asylum-seekers and our Mohammedan brethren, so why not have neither?

  • Angry Harry

    Keir Starmer has been misleading the public over false allegations against men for some time now.

    Indeed, he is forever trying to suggest that most men who are accused of sexual crimes are guilty, when he has no valid evidence for this whatsoever.

    Indeed, for him to suggest to the public that most of these men are guilty when the legal system has failed to come up with the evidence to convict them is utterly unconscionable, in my view.

    Can you imagine the outcry if, for example, he said that most blacks who were accused of crimes were guilty simply by virtue of the accusation alone?

    • Colonel Mustard

      I agree and in fact that was what I meant when I wrote he “has done little or nothing to protect those accused of crimes from presumptions of guilt from the CPS, the police and the media”. It does seem as though accusation is being conflated as guilt for certain crimes and I find his urging that there should be more convictions – as though justice is a sausage factory – alarming. And engineering appeals when he doesn’t get the result he wants? Ugh!

      • Angry Harry

        Everyone who works for the justice system is discredited when the head of the Crown Prosecution Service claims that people who remain unconvicted are, in fact, guilty of the crimes of which they have been accused.

        Mostly, he is stirring up hatred towards men.

        And he knows full well that he is doing this, because he would never do the same to, say, ‘black’ people – because this would stir up hatred towards them.

        But he seems quite happy to stir up hatred towards men – I presume, because he hopes to advance his career by doing so.

        Which, no doubt, he will – because there are billions of dollars worth of power and money (literally) to be made by groups that continually stir up hatred towards men.

  • David Prentice

    Nice one, Fraser, and could someone tell what passes for the Conservatives these days that a promise to repeal Harriet Harperson’s Human Rights Act will reap votes in their key marginals.

  • Nick

    Good riddance to bad rubbish.But will his successor be another ‘up his/her own a–e?
    And will this person be terrified of muslims as well?

  • The Laughing Cavalier

    Mr Starmer is a Blair appointee. Need one say more?

  • Smithersjones2013

    So Starmer believes he is above the law, above democracy and above the will of the people does he? He has no right and should be stripped of his post immediately without benefits.

  • Bonkim

    Well said Mr Nelson – the Law is for Parliament to promulgate and not for public servants like Mr Starmer to push.

  • mrsjosephinehydehartley

    Kier Starmer is the director of public prosecutions. This is not the same as a lawyers job. Another bill of rights would just lead to more complexity for your average worker to leverage against hapless individuals, who otherwise could just get on with our own lives autonomously.

  • Denis_Cooper

    “The laws of the land should be decided in Parliament by elected politicians”

    I agree, but we don’t need a Bill of Rights to say that, we just need elected politicians who actually believe it and insist that it must be so.

    In which case, they would certainly not tolerate our continuing membership of the EU, and nor would they accept that decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg were legally binding.

    But, hold on, I saw your colleague Fraser Nelson on TV actually suggesting that press organisations should go to Strasbourg to try to get the new system of press regulation overturned, so you need to have a word with him about that.

  • Matthew

    It’s not Keir Starmer’s fault that the abortion law is for all practical purposes unenforceable
    However, it would have been better had he just said so instead of claiming he would not prosecute on “public interest” grounds.

  • Tom Tom

    Ah Fraser, what is the difference with the 10 Amendments known to Americans as The Bill of Rights ? The First is now toast and the Fourth irrelevant with FISA as a new secret Supreme Court. The right to bear arms – the Second – derives from England where it was abolished in 1920.

    Most Common Law offences have been abolished in favour of Statute. Now explain the difference between Dred Scott and the 14th Amendment and how Roe v Wade is derived from the 14th. You might highlight the lack of judicial activism of the Burger Court in your thesis. Then you could help us understand D Notices and RIPA and how the EU Data Protection laws were rescinded for US corporations under Safe Harbor legislation so Disqus has no obligations under EU law

    • Colonel Mustard

      The right to bear arms under the 1689 Act was never abolished. The Home Office gradually introduced more licensing requirements and restrictions on ownership. The 1920 Act did not abolish the right but made it conditional by interpreting the original wording of “as allowed by law” to mean that the state had the right to determine the criteria for that allowance. In fact the original wording probably related to the custom and practice Common Law right to defend hearth and home that already existed and which James I had abrogated.

      The restrictions were introduced fairly secretively as police procedural matters and never publicly debated or challenged. The ‘self defence’ criteria was dropped by the Home Secretary in 1937 allowing Chief Constables to refuse licences based on that requirement. This change was never debated in Parliament and never passed by law although it is often presumed to be part of the 1937 Firearms Act. It was a procedural change and arguably an illegal one as it breached the fundamental principle of the 1689 Bill of Rights which enshrined the right to own arms for self defence.

      The ancient rights of the people have never been protected by our politicians let alone the lawyers they employ. The whole sorry tale is one of increasing erosion of individual freedoms and rights and the growing power of the state to control, intrude and interfere in our lives.

  • James Strong

    Be careful what you wish for.
    If we had a Bill of Rights now it would very likely be no such thing; it would be a list of entitlements, e.g. the ‘right’ to a family life.
    If we could have a bill of rights that was, similar to the Bill of Rights in the USA, i.e. a list of prohibitions and restrictions on the power of government, the effect of which would be largely to provide the right to live without being impeded then I’d happy with that.
    But do you think that is what any cross-party discussion, or Royal Commission, or anything similar, would propose?
    The simplest thing would be to eliminate from the list of crimes anything that was not a crime before 1997. A one-clause Act could do that.
    And to leave the ECHR, and the EU.

    • Alexsandr

      a proper bill of rights would enshrine our rights, but explain that having those rights comes with responsibilities, i.e not to kill others etc. And enshrine in law the concept that if you fail in your responsibilities, your rights are curtailed.

    • bwims


      • bwims

        How about a “right to be offended without recourse to law”?

  • foxoles

    We already have a Bill of Rights to safeguard many of our freedoms. It is still functional. It’s just that politicians and bureaucrats like Starmer would rather rip up our constitution and replace it with a ‘Year Zero’ of their own choosing.

  • simmo70


    Merkel similar to
    Blair is a “smiling assassin” of the first order .Her first priority is self-promotion
    on the World stage,her second agenda is the Promotion of Germany.Her allegiance
    was once to the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) serving under General
    Secretary Eric Honicker (1971-1989). He escaped to the Chilean Embassy in
    Moscow in 1991 but was extradited back to Germany a year later to stand trial
    for his role in the human rights abuse committed by the East German regime.

    Merkel’s third term
    as Unified German Chancellor has certainly taught her how to run with the Foxes
    & the Hounds.

    Her influence
    within the EU has not been seen since the days of Charles De Gaulle.Her fingers
    are in so many pies she has to be ambidextrous.Merkel & Putin enjoyed
    closer relations until Germany’s hard line attitude to the Financial crisis in
    Cyprus,many Russians had invested their money there.

    Merkel on Greece –
    she says Greece should never have been allowed in by chancellor Schroeder , but
    she has now installed a Puppet Government in Greece and it is run in the
    background by the EU.

    Her special
    relationship with Obama is questionable she has been awarded the Presidential
    Medal of Freedom for an especially meritorious contribution to the National
    Interests of the USA.

    Cameron is BS us
    that he will renegotiate Britain’s Terms within the EU – Merkel will slap his
    bum change his nappy and send him back here with even Less than we have now.BSB

  • swatnan

    Its a mistake to tear up the HRA, because it would expose Britain to the ridicule of the world as a country where Human Reights have been abolished. To intorduce a Bill for a ‘British Human Rights’ is absurd because any and every tinpotdictatorship can bring in legislation to suit itself, and claim it is for rights, when in reality it is not.

    • Alexsandr

      That is a silly argument. We elect our politicians to decide our laws. The ECHR is not elected so has no legitimacy. Because we cant sack them when they dont do their jobs properly.
      We don’t need a load of academic judges standing over us. We have a reasonable juduciary already.
      Of course we could just ignore their rulings like the french do!

    • global city

      What are we to do when the symbolic body becomes a danger to the proper rule of law?

      We should have the confidence that the UK does not need the oversight of a transnational body in order to keep our politicians in line, as it is this country’s patterns of justice and liberty that shaped the ECHR initially.

      ECHR has subsequently gone down a path that does not serve us. backing it because of it’s symbolic position (questionable anyway) would be like demanding that the League of Nations should not have been superceded.

  • fathomwest

    Mr Nelson, for once I agree with you wholeheartedly. But to rid ourselves of the ECHR I do believe we will have to leave the EUSSR.
    I also thought David Mellor, not my favourite person, had a point over the Royal Charter on the Press when he pointed out the difference between the Spectator the Times, Telegraph etc and the red tops. The journalism within the red tops is calling out for them to be shackled.

    • James Strong

      No. No shackles on the red tops.
      Toby Ziegler in The West Wing was given a great line on this. Paraphrased:It is only by having the red tops free to publish that we can be sure that the serious prints are free to publish.
      The same applies to rights of ‘terror’ suspects or any other ‘enemies’ as put forward at any time. It is only by giving them the presumption of innocence that the rest of us can retain it for ourselves.

  • MichtyMe

    If Chris Grayling does not want the English justice system superimposed upon then his Government could abolish that recent Labour creation, the UK Supreme Court.

    • Tom Tom

      That would really destroy the Conservatives

  • BoiledCabbage

    Cameron really has to get a grip and stop the rot in the UK, that includes sorting out the legal system. He could do it in a month if he pulled his lazy Eton finger out.

  • telemachus

    Grayling is wrong and anti-democratic
    Starmer has shown during his tenure that he has the wider interests of the public at heart
    The last thing we want is a UK, or worse English Bill of Rights imposed by the Coalition or anyone associated with them

    • Colonel Mustard


    • Harold Angryperson

      So Grayling (elected) is anti-democratic, whilst Starmer (unelected) isn’t?

      Are you by any chance educationally sub-normal?

      • Two Bob

        100% chance

      • Nicholas chuzzlewit

        The answer to your second question is: Yes.

      • telemachus

        Grayling was drafted in because Clarke was deemed by Cameron too liberal

        • Smithersjones2013

          Well he (Clarke) was certainly ”liberal’ with his views about rape now wasn’t he?

    • Two Bob

      Well, you are hardly in a position to call someone anti democratic considering your extremist views….

      • telemachus

        Reasonable you mean

        • Colonel Mustard

          No he means you are an anti-democratic extremist. And you are. Your boast of “reasonableness” is empty, hollow, worthless. No reasonable person would have to boast continuously about it like you do.

        • Smithersjones2013

          Despotic more like…..

        • Hexhamgeezer


        • bwims

          You really must be a muslim sock puppet.

    • ADW

      Those “wider interests of the public” do not include the obscenity of gender-based abortion, then …

      • telemachus

        Remind me why that is obscene

        • Alexsandr

          are you fracking real?
          Cutting little girls with broken glass?
          in what way is than not the most obscene thing in the world?
          If you think medieval practices like FGM are acceptable then you disgist me.

          • telemachus

            FGM is reprehensible
            That was not your comment
            What is the difference between a woman wanting an abortion because she needs a new kitchen which is legal and wanting an abortion because she knows her husband will beat her when the baby is born without a member
            I would argue that the latter is more morally justified

            • Alexsandr

              surely both are wrong?
              I thought the law was clear. There had to be a real risk to the mother for an abortion to take place, but it seems I was wrong.

              BTW your reply took a while to come. did you have to ask your masters to make that islamophobic comment? (Tongue in cheek mode off)

            • bwims

              Neither are morally justified (how can you have _more_ morally justified? It either is or isn’t). Until we stop dehumanising unborn children, and using irrelevant canards like “backstreet abortions” now that the stigma of bastardy is gone, we can start talking about morality.

              The only moral abortion, in my opintion, is when it was caused as an act of rape, or will result in the death of the mother or will result in crippling deformity of the child.

              “Psychological damage” is a load of ovoids.

        • ADW

          Because it is a manifestation of a cultural norm that says that women are inferior to men – to the point where they should be exterminated not for reasons of the mother’s health or any other circumstances save for the clapped out prejudices of some ignorant old men. If you think that is tolerance, multiculturalism or whatever then you are a gutless wimp, just like the DPP. I really wonder what the suffragettes would have thought of this abomination …

    • Alexsandr

      i refer the gentleman to our discussion about labour place men in quangoes and common purpose in the comments in the paul dacre article

      • telemachus

        Nonsense on the Dacre thread
        Nonsense here

        • Colonel Mustard

          You can stop posting your nonsense any time. You wouldn’t be missed.

      • telemachus

        Nonsense there
        nonsense here

        • Colonel Mustard

          Well don’t keep posting it then.

  • manonthebus

    IMHO, the Common Law (ancient practice from time immemorial followed and enlarged by judges) was eminently preferable to the hastily-botched up statutes that have often bedevilled our justice system. Even so, our ways worked until we were signed up to EU legislation which has driven a coach and horses through the English tradition of justice.

    • Tom Tom

      Yet lawyers saw Common Law led to inconsistency and unpredictability.The rules against Champerty stopped conditional fee arrangements

      • salieri

        I think you meant contingency (not conditional) fee arrangements, which give the lawyer a share of the damages, though I can’t see how your second sentence follows from the first.

        In any case, unpredictability is naturally what socialist systems most dislike, since it’s the opposite of uniformity. Better inflexible law, it seems, than flexible justice. Yet statutory law can never be free of inconsistency either. The greatness of the English common law is its recognition that there will always be differences between people and that they need to be accommodated, not eliminated.

        • Tom Tom

          Contingency Fees are banned – the term is CONDITIONAL Fee Arrangement – see L J Jackson reforms April 2013

          • salieri

            Sorry, chum, but you are mistaken. CFAs have been around since the absurdly named “Access to Justice Act” of 1999. Contingency fees were permitted by the Jackson reforms this year: they are now called DBAs (damages-based agreements). Incidentally, conditional fees were never a form of champerty. Look it up:

  • Colonel Mustard

    Starmer has been a very political DPP whose partisan direction of enforcement and attempts to influence law making have undermined impartiality and the rule of law in this country. He seems to think his position gives him political power over the law rather than being a public servant with a duty of impartiality. The sooner he is gone the better.

    In his emphasis on victims and witnesses he appears to have completely lost sight of the ancient English precedent of innocent until proven guilty and has done little or nothing to protect those accused of crimes from presumptions of guilt from the CPS, the police and the media.

    His replacement looks just like the woman with the neck brace who runs the chemist’s shop in Doc Martin.

    • telemachus

      On the contrary Mustard, his sensitive application of the law has prevented several gross miscarriages of justice

      • Colonel Mustard

        More lies.

      • MirthaTidville

        No he hasnt he is a clown..The DPP is traditionally drawn from the ranks of Criminal Lawyers but your stupid lot brought Starmer in from A `Human Rights` background..That tells the rest of us all we need to know…..But I`ve no doubt that his replacement wont be much better…Tories/Liebour??..nowt between them

        • telemachus

          LocalGov Digital Chair Carl Haggerty is shortlisted in the Leadership Excellence category of the 2013 Guardian Public Leaders Network Public Services Awards.

          The shortlist is now put to public vote ahead of the winner being announced on Tuesday 12 November 2013.

          The nomination for Carl, also Digital Communications Manager – Strategic Lead at Devon County Council, says: “Haggerty has been shortlisted for his energy and openness in pursuit of pervasive digital awareness and education, which has included an innovation month at Devon County Council.

          “‘He’s doing something remarkable in a place you might not necessarily expect’, according to the Public Leaders Network editorial advisory board.”
          Also shortlisted in the category are Mike Bracken, executive director of digital at the Cabinet Office; Sue Bruce, chief executive at Edinburgh City Council; Lynne Owens, chief executive of Surrey Police; and Keir Starmer, outgoing director of public prosecution.
          You see
          You should all vote for him

          • Colonel Mustard

            He deserved the award of the Order of the Boot from Grieve more than three years ago. I would have voted for that.

            • Alexandrovich

              Problem is Colonel, the House of Saud would not allow that.

          • DWWolds

            Anyone who has “Chair” in his or her title deserves to be sat upon.

            • telemachus

              What would you prefer that does not offend the ladies?

              • DWWolds

                Well, I am a lady and I am far more offended, when in charge of a meeting or organisation, if I am referred to as “Chair” rather than “Chairman”.

                After all, a chair is generally made of wood and meant to be sat upon. I am not wooden and nobody sits on me.

                Additionally, the word “man” originally meant “people” as well as a male individual. In fact, I believe that in German it still does.

                However, I have better things to do than argue with someone who seems to have nothing better to do that argue.

                • Oedipus Rex

                  You’re linguistically correct. Hence ‘wo-man’; no-one seriously would propose calling a lady simply a ‘wo’ or (plural) ‘wi’ !

                  ‘Man’ as a suffix is gender neutral in English, or certainly was.
                  I applaud your refusal to be labeled as if you were merely a piece of furniture.

              • Colonel Mustard

                I can see nothing more fitting to signal the equality of women than referring to the female Chairman of a meeting as Chairman. If a lady is offended by that then she must be sexist.

          • MirthaTidville

            I stopped reading when I came to the words Excellence and the Guardian in the same sentence

            • telemachus

              Spoken like the good Dacre Man you are

              • Colonel Mustard

                More labels.

      • telemackus

        As usual we make statements of support for labtard apparatchiks without any regard to the truth. Starker was the worst DPP on record and should have been booted out long ago. We must remember to take our pills.

      • Colonel Mustard

        “Stephen Parkinson, head of criminal law at the law firm Kingsley Napley, said: “All directors since 1987, the year after the CPS was set up, have been drawn from barristers in private practice. None had any experience of working within the public sector, none have had any serious experience of management. The last two directors have had no significant prosecution background at all before their appointment. Yet the core of CPS work is decision-making on which cases to prosecute, and subsequent pre-trial preparation.

        “Judges, one of whom usually sits on the appointments board, tend to feel reassured if a member of the bar is appointed – yet this practice should stop. Instead the emphasis should be on extensive, practical experience as a prosecutor, a significant management background, and a deep understanding of the public sector ethos.

        “There are now a number of people holding senior positions within the CPS who are well placed to take the top job, both in terms of their ability and their profile. It is nonsense and insulting to suppose that they are any less independent than members of the bar. Each of them has carried significant executive responsibility already as a chief crown prosecutor. They know the job and have the confidence of their colleagues.””

        • telemachus

          During his 20-year career, Keir has earned a reputation as one of the country’s most gifted lawyers, and an expert in the field of human rights. Appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2002, he was named Human Rights Lawyer of the Year in 2001 and QC of the Year in Human Rights and Public Law in 2007. He is the author of several leading legal textbooks and is a Visiting Fellow at Essex University. From 2003-2008, he was the Human Rights Advisor to the Policing Board in Northern Ireland, publishing several reports. He was Joint Head of Doughty Street Chambers before taking up the role of Director of Public Prosecutions in November 2008.


          “…all Doughty Street’s tenants are class acts who can be relied upon to advise with the high level of skill and client care now expected of the set.”

          • Colonel Mustard

            Here is some news about that regeneration of our nation you are always going about:-

            “More than 600,000 unemployed European Union migrants are living in Britain at a cost of £1.5 billion to the NHS alone, according to an EU report. The authoritative study shows the number of jobless European migrants coming to Britain has risen dramatically in the past five years, intensifying demands for the Government to renegotiate EU membership.

            The 291-page report, to be published this week by the European commissioner in charge of employment and welfare, discloses:-

            • The number of “non-active” EU migrants in Britain has risen by 42 per cent between 2006 and 2012;

            • 611,779 “non-active” EU migrants were living in Britain last year, up from 431,687 just six years ago. The total is equivalent to the population of Glasgow;

            • The number of EU migrants coming to Britain without a job increased by 73 per cent in the three years to 2011;

            • The current annual cost to the NHS of “non-active” EU migrants is estimated at £1.5 billion (€1.8 billion);

            • In contrast, the estimated cost to France’s health system of “non-active” EU migrants is a fraction of that to the NHS, at just £3.4 million.

            • Alexsandr

              french system is not free at point of use. Seem to remember you have to pay and collect stamps then apply for money back later. Dunno how you get on if you havent paid in.

            • telemachus

              Disingenuous Telegraph disinformation compounded by Mustard selective quotes

              In fact the article said:

              “Although the report details the cost to the Government in stark terms, it comes with a conclusion that there is “little evidence” that EU citizens came to Britain to collect state benefits – and the practice known as “benefit tourism” was largely a myth.

              The study states “the vast majority of migrants move to find (or take up) employment”. The report concludes that “the budgetary impact” of claims by “non-active” EU migrants “on national welfare budgets is very low” and adds: “The same is true for costs associated with the take-up of health care by this group.”
              So in truth as I keep saying we benefit greatly from the infusion of ideas, energy, culture and genes from previous and current migrations from Claudius on

              • Colonel Mustard

                Yet more lies and duplicity. I quoted the costs for inactive immigrants as reported in the article. £1.5 billion to the NHS. Not a benefit but a burden.

                Stupid fools like you are going to destroy this country and one wonders what it will take before the scales finally fall from your eyes. What a piece of work you are.

                • telemachus

                  Rejuvenate, not destroy

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Is that what you call it. Hard to see how £1.5 billion being spent by the NHS on non-contributory, non-productive foreigners is “rejuvenation” and not destroying its capacity to provide services to the elderly and sick of the indigenous population. You people really do think a slogan can create truth from a lie.

                  “Rejuventate, not destroy” the sort of slogan that might be seen on a Soviet-era poster as Stalin destroys the lives of millions with his rejuvenation programme.

                  You really are a rather sad, silly little man with the intellect of a pea.

                • HookesLaw

                  There is no proof of your 1.5 billion figure. It is speculation.
                  the whole purport of the report is to say we benefit from immigration.

                • HookesLaw

                  Do we need less immigration? Yes.

                  I for one will not demean the argument by quoting spurious correlation from a report which in fact is there to try to prove that immigration benefits Britain and to demand that we pay benefits to EU migrants without any delay.

                • Matthew Blott

                  Folks who prefer to base their opinion an actual evidence as opposed to rhetoric? Sir, that is stupid. As are you.

              • telemackus

                We are all clear that the 600,000 unemployed EU citizens living here are doing so entirely at their own expense without recourse to JSA, HBA, child benefit or any welfare payments. Not one would be occupying any social housing or being anything other than a net contributor to our culture and GDP. How wonderful that these unemployed aliens can give us so much when we give them so little.

  • lgrundy

    Another member of Labour’s ‘Stay-Behind Army’ who should have been purged a long time ago.

    • Austin Barry

      We’re all still waiting for Starmer to prosecute a Female Genital Mutilation case.

      He keeps telling us that he wants to be the first DPP to do so in the 28 years since FGM became a crime, but nothing ever happens: it’s all too difficult obtaining evidence, apparently, although France, with a hundred convictions to date, doesn’t appear to have any difficulties.

      Cultural sensitivity and relativism permeates the Director of Political Pusillanimity’s office, and it shouldn’t.

      The ineffectual, wilting liberal Starmer should be fired and a rather more robust DPP appointed.

      • global city

        It is probably one of the easiest crimes to pursue. A medical check that reveals that any minor has had it done to them leaves the parents open to a charge of neglect at the very least.

        They won’t even do this though.

        • crosscop

          Personally, I would go for Section 18 (GBH) Religiously Aggravated Wounding. After all, these girls have only been attacked because of their religion.

      • Colonel Mustard

        He’s out this month anyway, although his departure seems to have dragged on interminably and hasn’t reduced his capacity for spreading the Thoughts of Chairman Starmer far and wide in the meantime.

        • DavidL

          Is he? I await his appointment as a BBC Governor or suchlike in a month or so.

          • Colonel Mustard

            He says he has not made any plans but probably a prominent NGO post where he can continue his agenda or something Human Rights in the EU or UN.

      • Wessex Man

        well I’m not, although I think it’s an awldul thing to do to a woman, I’m not stood around waiting for him to do that. Who do you suggest from our long list of luminaries currently flouncing around our legal system with any guts to do anything?

    • MikeBrighton

      Absolutely Kier Hardie er sorry Starmer should have been eased out with the first few weeks of a Tory led government. He’s just a Labour apparatchik

      • crosscop

        Keir Hardie himself would have been “eased out” of the Labour Party these days because of his opposition to foreigners taking British jobs – the vile “racist!”

        • therealguyfaux

          (*cough*) BNP (*cough*).

          BNP is to 2013 as Labour is to 1913.

  • Greenslime

    As an unelected civil servant he should not even be interviewed about his ‘views’. Exactly as you say, he is there to ensure that the law is applied in accordance with the wishes of parliament.

    • George Igler

      hear, hear

  • Hippocleides

    Oh dear.
    1. HRA does not ‘impose foreign law’. It puts the ECHR, which the UK drafted in 1950, within the scope of UK Courts. The human rights standards are international norms. You might as well say that England should not play in the European Cup because it’s a foreign football tournament.
    2. DPP and barristers don’t ‘decide the law’ – whatever that means. Parliament still makes law and retains power to unmake them.
    3. Can you answer Lord Bingham’s challenge – which of the protections under the ECHR would you like to give up?

    Silly hysterical article.

    • Colonel Mustard

      Hippocleides danced away the truth.

    • manonthebus

      It did no such thing. It introduced foolish ideas into the original concept of basic human rights which were intended to prevent the harm done by totalitarian regimes.

    • bugshead

      Eh, have you actually read and understood this article ? The problem we have with a lack of BoR is that the likes of Starmer and his cohorts of expert lawyers are responsible for interpretation and the application of the ECHR to our justice system. And this applies not just to ECHR but the reams of legislation which recent governments have been churning out in other fields, notably criminal law

      • Tom Tom

        The HRA is to protect the Individual from The State so why does the DPP have any role in that?

    • Nicholas chuzzlewit

      In answer to question 3: All of it. We are perfectly capable of deciding these things for ourselves.

    • Hexhamgeezer

      Is it an ‘international norm’ that a murderous illegal immigrant that has got someone pregnant and whose child he doesn’t support, should not be deported to his own country? Include me out of that one.

      The DPP does de facto decide the law – it decides which laws will be brought to court and which aren’t – see female aborting of females.

      The ECHR does not and cannot give me any protections. English law and juries do.

      • Alexsandr

        i am fed up of hearing that prosecutions are ‘not in the public interest’ What is that all about. If someone has broken the law and there is a reasonable change of conviction then its the courts job to decide, not some civil servant.

        • Hexhamgeezer

          In most cases I guess that is because, whether we are talking ‘international norms’ or the old English case law, there is the overriding question of public (!$lamic) order to consider. Keir Starmer, Daveednick, the BBC and the whole architecture of the Left dictate that stamping out !$lamic female infanticide or allowing the EDL civil rights is not conducive to public (aka !$lamic) order. This is why they have allowed the pandemic of grooming to go on with a few scraps thrown our way with the drip feeding of well regulated trails.

          The public interest in a Balkanized society ‘aint what it used to be – unfortunately.

        • Tom Tom

          The CPS was set up by the Conservatives because they wanted a centralised Prosecutor not regional District Attorneyx

    • Tom Tom

      Parliament introduced Gay Marriage but has not updated Divorce lawssince1973 leaving judges to improvise as DINKS and long separations cause new problems such as higher rates of illegitimacy and single parenthood

    • MirthaTidville

      The ECHR was drafted in the aftermath of WW2…it was brought in to deal with facts and circumstances that have long since changed. Now is the perfect time to bin it

  • Shazza

    Well said Fraser. Good on you.