The Tories plans to scrap the Human Rights Act and renegotiate the terms of our human rights agreement with Strasbourg are out. And there are a few quibbles, worries, and in some cases, glaring errors or omissions.
The plans are so vague in part, and so unrealistic in other that it led Conservative MP and former Attorney General Dominic Grieve to say that proposals produced by Justice Secretary Chris Grayling contained a series of factual "howlers" and were not properly thought through.
Under the blueprint, a future Conservative government would effectively issue an ultimatum to Strasbourg that it must accept being merely an "advisory body" - or Britain would withdraw from the system altogether. The party would scrap the Human Rights Act introduced by Labour in 1998 to enshrine the European Convention on Human Rights in domestic law.
Instead there would be a Bill of Rights, which would include the principles from the convention - originally drawn up by British lawyers after the Second World War. But it would also make clear that the Supreme Court UK judges were not obliged to take European Court of Human Rights' rulings into account when coming to decisions.
Lawyers have been overtly critical of the new proposals.
Grayling rejected the criticisms and insisted the current Attorney General, Jeremy Wright, and said he believed the plans were "fine, viable and legal", denying it had been "rushed out" after the Prime Minister made a crowd-pleasing pledge at this week's party conference.
So what have lawyers been picking holes in?
