Course you did, Greg 
Do you know what?Call me old fashioned, but personally I find nothing "funny" about an organisation that permits convicted child rapists to appeal against deportation, on the grounds that it would interfere with their right to family life.
There is nothing a liberal could say to persuade me, or any decent, right thinking person, that the ECHR is a benefit to the UK.
@Jezza99, the old disagree dislike or funny debate, at least its not anonymous if you are into that sort of thing. Maybe we should be able to mark the supreme court in a similar way. Anyway, good ruling on tribunal fee's and misuse by individual employees and more importantly their legal representation should be held fully accountable.
It broke UK and EU Law. And a Law that's been on the statute books since 1297, those pesky liberal barons demanding the King sign Magna Carta or they'd lop of his head off.
I don't find it funny, but the law is being followed. As the phrase goes, the law is an ass.
So you'll be happy if the Government drafts a bill of rights to replace the ECHR, but then we get no direct say on if we accept or reject that bill of rights ? Getting rid of the ECHR and the Human Rights Act suits vested interests more than it suits individual liberties.
Magna Carta was obviously not drafted with this situation in mind. There were no employment tribunals in 1297. It is just silly to try and quote it in these circumstances
As for the law being an ass, exactly my point ! It seriously needs changing.
We elect governments to draft laws on our behalf, so yes I would be more than comfortable with any bill of rights that removed any right of appeal on spurious grounds to convicted criminals, particularly on deportation. We should be able to deport who we chose to, without interference from a foreign court or laws.
Or perhaps you could explain one benefit I get from the Human Rights Act? Because I seem to remember being just fine before it was passed?
It guarantees access to justice and underpins everything that came after it on the long slow march to democracy across the world.
That's what parliament is for. But hey ho it's full of lawyers...
And what recourse do the innocent who are wrongly convicted of a crime have then ? We deport them, then it's discovered they are innocent. Hello expensive compensation claims and our international reputation taking a dent. If you like it or not, these cases have to be heard to protect the tiny minority who are innocent but wrongly convicted.
FYI - I had the misfortune of having one of the Oxford Grooming Gang in my class at middle school. He was a disturbed individual looking back, and I still have nightmares about him almost choking me to the point of unconsciousness one lunch time under a teachers nose.
Even if we ditched the ECHR and had a bill of rights, foreign courts and laws would still interfere. Countries merely have to refuse a plane access to it's airspace and deportation fails.
Around during WWII then ? If you want to understand why the Human Rights Act is important for, you have to go back to WWII. Pointless bringing up any benefits of the HRA with you, as you'll just ignore it and moan about Judges doing what is set out in the Constitution, Common Law and so on.
So there aren't any benefits then. We managed just fine before it was implemented, it only helps criminals and illegal immigrants.
You still haven't explained why Charlie Gard's parents were not able to access legal aid. Surely if Magna Carta was this marvellous guarantee of access to justice for all, they wouldn't have needed to rely on pro bono lawyers?
Why when I have used the small claims court have I had to pay a fee up front, with no guarantee of recouping it?
Charging a fee (reclaimable if successful) for an Employment Tribunal is not denying anyone access to justice, that is clearly cobblers on stilts.
Why should the parents have had any legal aid?
Justice is and has been around a lot longer than the Magna Carta, the concept of justice or fairness is universal, could be argued the concept is super natural but that a whole other Philosophical debate. The Magna Carta was an attempt to define this concept in accordance with the law, a cornerstone of legitimate governance, the very essence of individuals and human societies. We could always go back to lopping peoples body parts off or burning them or even WW. Now wouldn't that a fab time to be alive, maybe not.