Should the UK abolish the Human Rights Act?

No, but criminals should lose rights depending on the severity of their crime/crimes.

Only for people who committed crimes against children, rape or sexual assault or any other crime that can fall under this category

Criminals that have been convicted for depraved acts shouldn’t even be considered a human being, ONLY IF the crimes are undeniable and are extremely serious, like murder, rape, on the other hand child pedophillia should be met with death

People who have committed crimes inflicted on children and vulnerable people, such as sex crimes, homicide, etc, should loose these rights.

The question is far too broad to answer accurately.

Should amend it

No, but crimimals or individuals that commit inhumane acts should not be protected by the Human Rights Act

No, the principles that arise from each case emanating from the Human Rights Act 1998 established principles that are designed to protect the citizen from the tyranny of the state. You may be innocent and law abiding one day, but one action my mean you fall foul of the law. The Human Rights Act is a living and breathing legislation that enshrines ECHR protection into UK law.

Make contingent on intent. If reasonable suspicion they’re being used to game the system or re-enter the country after initial deportation then rights are lost.

We should leave the ECHR

Yes, but it needs to me remade

Re look at the act

Not to be removed but changed modernley .

No but make it more relevant to present day

only if it’s going to be replaced with something more effective and beneficial to everyone and making sure everyone is still protected

Needs changing

I would need to know more details

No, human rights is one of the most important things in society

No, anyone who says "Yes" does not understand we won't get more control but less if we replace it with our own.

If it means we can have a uk alternative act installed and we can remove illegals

in some places ues

No, but criminals should lose many of their rights when incarcerated and adopt them when they leave prison or earned such as voting

Dependent on how serious the criminals actions were.

No but we should stop "over interpreting" it against our national interest

No, but add new socio-economic rights into the Act to include things like right to healthcare.

I think there should be a more current act, this should not focus on racism- treat everyone the same

Do not abolish, everyone should be entitled to Human Rights and anyone seen breaking this should be punished.

yes, the only true rights are those derived from property rights

A referendum on the matter should be held immediately

No, but allow a referendum on the matter

No, and any politician raising this issue should be removed and barred from ever standing for parliament.

no, many/most crimaals should lose their rights DEPENDING on what they did.

No but crimes against children should lead to all rights being removed, acts of terror and murder should also remove all of the rights too

I would Maintain it in essence, but some clauses referring to immigration in the ECHR I would get rid of/update

this shouldnt be a law, all humans have rights and this is common sense, we dont ned athority to tell us this.

Yes, replace with a bill of rights that consolidate rights for citizens under a binding constitution

I would amend it so that the right to a trial or hearing is only for uk citizen and immigrants that came legally so that illegal immgrants cannot abuse the courts

No, but it needs significant change. Many groups still lack protection and religion shouldn't be a protected characteristic.

Their has to some sirt of himsn rights,but everything thst happen ans any disagreememts and their are cries for "human rights,humam rights'. Im on the fence to be honest

it should stay but should be reshaped to say your treatment and privileges and freedom you get should be a fair reflection of the way you act and treat others and your surroundings.

I Agree With The Other Stance Option That’s Above But Repeal It & Make A Deal To Flux ECHR Policies Same With NATO

People who go against white British christan values should not be considered British at all and should either be deported or aressted but if they have nothing against us they deserve rights

No, the Human Rights Act should not be abolished, but convicted criminals should lose certain rights where this is necessary to protect the public and uphold justice.

Murderers, terrorists and rapists should be stripped of their human rights and given heavier penalties than they currently are. Special prisons should be made for these kinds of people.

No, but it needs to be amended in some areas to allow for the deportation of those convicted of sexual offences and terror offences.

I think if there is somebody that has committed a heinous crime then they should lose some but only temporarily until they have proven they deserve them again.

They should not abolish it. But it should not apply to illegal immigrants or criminals.

Yes - replace it with a bill of rights based on our historic foundation of Judeo-Christian values and a healthy dose of common sense!

I think that criminals should lose some rights but depending on how bad the crimes they committed were. However, there does definitely need to be some level of human rights

No, but criminals that have committed acts of heavy violence, murder and sexual crimes should lose many of these rights

Yes and make a new act stating all those this awful bill seems to protect are now enemies of the state.

It definitely needs reviewing as it is being abused in certain situations. People who premeditate to torture and hurt other human beings need their rights reducing after a fair trial.

No, however criminals of serious crimes like rape, intentional murder for no reason , Paedophiles, child sex traffickers should have all or most of these rights taken away.

No but strip the human rights from offenders of major crimes such as murder, rape, human trafficking etc.

Certain points need to be maintained - it needs to be more flexible maybe - but certainly not abolished.

They should only abolish the human rights act for convicted rapists, murderers and terrorists or even strip them of their citizenship if convicted of terrorism offences

Yes, replace it with a bill of rights that must be approved upon and announced by the majority of people beforehand.

Whilst still having human rights. Reducing the chance of people abusing them because of “protected characteristics”

should be a more in depth human rights with focusing on on humans business military wars and criminals

No, but criminals of major sentences should have some of their rights reduced/ limited for a set time period both during and after sentence

Copy and paste much of it into British law i.e. British Convention on Human Rights (BCHR) but have it so we don't have to accept free movement of asylum seekers like the ECHR.

The ok should have more control over human rights in our country. I also think it should be completely overhauled. Criminals should be treated like criminals.

Yes, the UK should create a written constitution for a federal republic than includes a declaration of rights

no, human rights apply to ALL humans regardless of criminal status and any attempt by the government to weaken these rights to pass legislation should worry the general public

A codified constitution, like the United States has, would benefit us as a society, though it depends on what would go into that constitution.

No, but given Brexit has occurred we should be reviewing any central policy implemented through the EU for suitability in a UK-centric purview

No, but illegal migrants should not get any rights in the UK and terrorists and pedophiles and child killers should have rights stripped.

Everybody should have basic human rights, abd be able to use drugs for personal use. Free medical care for the poor and focus on the homeless and mental health of UK citizens.

Yes, but there are some regulations that are ridiculous. This needs a discussion as to which regulations are over the top n take ownership of people for their stupid decisions.

Yes, and replace it with a constitution-style article which provides greater control to UK institutions.

NO abolishing internationally recognized rules will encourage regimes that violate these rules that democratic safe nations like Britain do not care about human rights abuses and violations of international law and therefore will encourage dictators to abuse these rights

No. We should not give the UK government the ability to remove our Basic Human Rights under any circumstance.

Serious criminal offenders like pedophiles and worse don’t deserve basic human rights if only there is strong evidence

yes and replace it with a constitution which is also democratically chosen, as the human rights act can be vetoed especially whilst in the eu where convention laws often clash with a countries human rights act.

No, and expand the human rights act to be far more protective of the freedom of speech, assembly, etc.

The Human Righrs Act should be assessed to potentially adjust certain points to ensure it isn’t being abused for certain issues such as blocking immigrants being deported. Human rights is very important and helps unfairness and justice but it is potentially being abused so it might be time for it to be reevaluated

No but if a person if found guilty of murder, rape, pedophilia, domestic abuse or sexual abuse they should lose those rights.

No, but criminals such as child killers, paedophiles, rapists, murderers who premeditated their unlawful actions and anyone who purposely destroys lives whether physical harm, emotional harm or mental harm should lose most of their rights and lose access to a new identity and police protection.

People are able to voice their opinion too harshly. Should be more opposition towards violent protests.

Yes and replace it with a document that adheres to Eatern Orthodox Christianity that the prime minister has complete power over.

Add something that protects and solidifies human rights and civil liberties more than the HRA, that cannot be removed or infringed by government

No, but criminals should lose part of their rights depending on the severity of their crimes The Right to a Free Trial should be a constitutional amendment that cannot be changed.

Yes and they should make a new one based on each individual, depending wether they are a good person or bad. they should get mord punishments for breaking this act.

Yes and replace it with a form of bill that the prime minister controls and is signed by the monarch in charge

Yes, it should be layered. The HRA has been taken advantage of by non-citizens. Not every person who steps on our soil should be afforded the same rights

We should create a constitution of sorts like the US which is written in law and cannot be taking advantage off by governments. Citizens will have rights and the government cannot violate those rights under any circumstance

I believe in more right leaning system of governing. Current system easily leads with corruption. Old scripts like Baskillion Doron.

No, only criminals that have committed certain crimes and/or are repeat offenders should have reduced rights

I believe the Act does have some merits to it however I believe that Britain should withdraw from the ECHR in order to deal with illegal immigration properly.

No abolishing the human rights act would create a negative image in where a democratic peaceful nation like Britain does not value international legislation. This will encourage other countries to withdraw in ,particular authoritarian countries with human rights abuses, therefore internationally the importance of protecting rights decreases across the world.

No, the human rights act protects everyone fairly. The only reason people would want to remove it is so they can reduce the amount of people coming in to the country, basically their logic is drapped in racism

If it is it should be replaced by a constitutional document that is dealt with separately from standard constitutional sovereignty similar to Canada

Not all criminals should lose their human right, but murders (not in self defence etc) and sexual offenders should

A distinction should be made for criminals who use the humans rights act as a way of staying in the country for example the grooming gangs leaders in Rochdale who made themselves stateless and still in the communities being paid for by tax payers.

no, but people who have committed serious crimes (rape, podophiles, murder) should not have the right

I believe there should be situations - not just criminals, whereby this can be overruled. Become less of a snowflake country

Those who murder, rape or unnecessarily commit violence to other people or animals should have their human rights revoked until the sentence has been served.