The Daily Mail - the mouthpiece of the Conservative Party - urgently needs it's readers to hate the Human Rights Act as soon as possible. I presume we are about to hear an announcement from the Government on why we should get rid of the Act.
For the second day running a front page has a story about how people are or have been claiming rights under the Act to resist extradition. Today's story concerns a man by the name of Tarik Chadlioui who is trying to use the Human Rights Act to resist being extradited to Spain on terrorism related matters.
It seems he was allowed into this country two years ago without challenge - something which the Human Rights Act is not to blame for I would think.
These particular stories concern people who I personally don't like - if they are guilty of what they are accused of I think they should go to prison - but I also accept that some of the most important laws mean that some times not very nice people might benefit from them.
The bottom line is that these people are actually in prison and whilst they are there they cannot harm us - meanwhile the Human Rights Act protects ordinary citizens - their lives and their safety.
I am not a lawyer but I have as good an understanding of the HR Act as most voters. It is meant to provide a set of guiding principles under which all other laws are applied in this country. The laws must be applied in such a way as they protect the ordinary people from the state - the government - and ensures that our basic rights are protected.
One of the most important rights under the Act is the right to life. The courts and the government must act in ways that help ensure our right to life.
It is argued that the Hillsborough enquiry and investigation was made possible by the HR Act - that it would not have got this far without it. As we know Hillsborough was about ordinary citizens losing their lives.
The recent Grenfell Tower fire caused the loss of life of ordinary citizens through no fault of their own - the HR Act, as a guiding principle, should cause the government and the Courts to ask why their right to life was compromised.
The Act protects our rights to a family life (not just the rights of alleged terrorists) - the right to freedom of thought, religion and the right to a fair trial and no punishment without law.
If we join in the hate that the Daily mail wants us to indulge in whilst Theresa May negotiates away our rights under the HR Act then we are allowing ourselves got be conned - again. It may not be written on the side of a bus - but it is the newspaper equivalent.
The authorities provided homes for those people in Grenfell Tower and they owed them certain duties under the law and as the investigation unfolds and the courts become involved - the principles of the Act will be applied. The questions will include how can we ensure that people's right to life is protected in the future.
If you take the view that these sorts of rights is not needed - that we can trust the authorities without those rights - then think of Hillsborough and think of Grenfell.
If you think that we can automatically trust the authorities to replace the HR Act with the same rights under English law - then think of Hillsborough and think of Grenfell - sometimes you need more than blind trust.
It will not be the wealthy owners of newspapers or government ministers that need the Human Rights Act - it is ordinary people.Suggest a correction