Haven't been on the hol for long have you?

Do you even know what the human rights act contains?

Are you saying because of one case involving a cat, where the judge was obviously an arse (I doubt the event even happened but I'd be happy to be put right) is reason to tear up one of the most important documents in recent history?

Unfortunately,the poster who raised the "cat case" appeared to be so busy working themselves into a lather describing immigrants generically as "cockroaches" of whom 50% as such should be deported (Adolf and Goebbels would have been proud of the subtlety of terminology and analysis utilised,just replace "immigrants" with "jews",they swallowed (being an open minded unprejudiced person no doubt) Theresa May's ignorant rabble rousing propaganda (echoing, surprise surprise, the open minded and unbiased approach of the Tory-supporting press) at face value.

The contemporary BBC report sheds more light on the "claim":

"Addressing party activists in Manchester, Mrs May attacked what she said were excessive uses of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights - the right to family life.
She said Article 8 had been used to prevent the removal of foreign national prisoners and illegal immigrants.

She said: "We all know the stories... about the illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because, and I am not making this up, he had a pet cat."

Within minutes, a spokesman for the Judicial Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, which issues statements on behalf of senior judges, said: "This was a case in which the Home Office conceded that they had mistakenly failed to apply their own policy - applying at that time to that appellant - for dealing with unmarried partners of people settled in the UK.
"That was the basis for the decision to uphold the original tribunal decision - the cat had nothing to do with the decision."

For the senior judges to come out with something like that would not be an everyday thing and illustrates how so much c..p is spouted by so many about the Human Rights Act and who frequently have no experience of actually seeing it in general operation in the Courts on a regular basis.Rather,they retreat into the blind prejudice comfort zone of a few instances,accurate or otherwise( (ie any "system" can be and is abused by a few, including those they support) and ignore the many more positives.

Edited by legaleagle (22 Jul 2015 9.06pm)

Right out of the left wing hand book on how to win an argument on immigration. Against immigration? 'You Nazi you!!! How dare you! Don't you know that you're to go to work 12 hours a day just to support the terminally selfish stupid and lazy! Let everyone in and let them sponge off the system!'. Never mind that we have enough home grown spongers and that our whole infastructure of this country is creaking under the weight of the immigration farse. There's no telling some people.

Right,so the salient quote from your link concerning laws "related in some way to Europe":

"All measurements have their problems and it is possible to justify any measure between 15 per cent and 50 per cent or thereabouts.”

"A majority" as you stated means over 50% per cent,not somewhere between 15%-50%.