Operation Overreach

Next Steps to Take

Be Empowered.

Get the latest news delivered directly to your inbox.

Be Empowered.

Get the latest news delivered directly to your inbox.

A grassroots human rights organisation with a big vision.

While keeping the pressure on and tackling the current issues we are also uniting with many to forge the way to a bright future; of liberty and a real democracy.

CONTACT

International House,

Constance Street,

London, E16 2DQ

United Kingdom

[email protected]

FIND YOUR WAY

A grassroots human rights organisation with a big vision.

While keeping the pressure on and tackling the current issues we are also uniting with many to forge the way to a bright future; of liberty and a real democracy.

CONTACT

International House,

Constance Street,

London, E16 2DQ

United Kingdom

[email protected]

©2022 Save Our Rights UK Ltd. is a Social Enterprise, Limited by Guarantee and Registered in England and Wales with Company Number 12993817 • All Rights Reserved • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy • Returns Policy

Dear MP,

I am writing to you today about my concerns regarding the Bill of Rights as part of the Governments Operation Overreach to erode our rights and freedoms.

I want to start by stating that I believe that this reform proposal is entirely unacceptable and I do not support it in any way. I stand for Human Rights and will continue to do so even if the Government tries to take them away through this reform.

The Government should be doing more to uphold our Human Rights and instead I find these proposals weaken and dilute them, which is why I cannot and will not support these proposals.

Below I will detail the six most pressing concerns that I see contained within the Governments proposal, this however, ought not to be taken as an endorsement of any other part of this Bill, of which I am entirely opposed.

Individual Rights

My first concerns about the Bill of Rights are about how it will impact the individual. I have four main issues that I want to address which are that:

The proposal of a permission stage will be prohibitive.
The scope of positive obligations will be diminished.
Society could be given more rights than the individual.
An individual’s right to rights could be judged by the court.

The proposal of a permission stage will be prohibitive.

In the reform proposal it proposes that there ought to be a permission stage when an individual wants to bring a Human Rights case before the court. This would ‘require claimants to demonstrate that they have suffered a significant disadvantage before a human rights claim can be heard in court.’ This will have a huge impact upon the number of claimants who are able to bring their case before the courts.

My belief is that our human rights need more protection, not less and bringing in this extra procedural stage with such a high, and undefined, threshold, at the initial stage, before it is even heard in court, means that many human rights abuse cases will go unheard. I do not believe that this can be considered acceptable.

I note the Government has used the same language as European Court of Human Rights protocol 14 but that is a European Court, facing a tremendous backlog. My belief is that as the domestic courts are not facing a backlog and each case referred to the courts will have been committed here in the UK it ought to be of the highest priority to the UK courts. I also fail to see that it is in any way comparable to the German Federal Constitutional Court which the Government makes reference to.

I want more protection for individuals, not less, therefore while I stand against the whole notion of this reform I would be particularly concerned about the introduction of a permission stage and believe it would lessen the amount our human rights were upheld.

The scope of positive obligations would be diminished.

There are many people in this nation who are in state run institutions from hospitals, to care homes, to prisons, to refuges. It has long been established that the state cannot absolve itself of its Human Rights obligations by doing nothing.

If the state does nothing and an individual’s rights are infringed upon and/or abused then the State is responsible, I believe this is rightly so. It is the Government’s obligation to uphold every citizen’s Human Rights.

Yet this proposed reform seeks to pass the buck and put the emphasis on personal responsibility. Now while I support the notion that we are all responsible for our own conduct, that does not mean the State can ignore Human Rights atrocities happening on it’s own soil, in it’s own institutions.

This impact will be felt predominantly by our most vulnerable in society; those with care needs, children in care homes, and so on. I will stand for them and their rights, they need proactive support. When this is coupled with the previous point which would prevent many of these cases even reaching court it would open up a huge risk of human rights abuses of our most vulnerable.

This, therefore, is another reason that I cannot support these proposals due to the reduction in accountability and increase in risk that it would cause.

Society could be given more rights than the individual.

We see the Government make mention of ‘wider public interest’ and ‘broader needs of society’ and say that each individual’s needs ought to be balanced against them. Now while of course we all have a duty to conduct ourselves that doesn’t injure or harm another these definitions are very wide and open to any number of interpretations.

With such wide terms anything that the Government decides could be defined as such would therefore be permissible in legislation. This is a very alarming prospect. For example it could be argued that it is in the broader needs of society for there to be no alcohol as pub brawls and alcoholism are not desirable.

Not only are these proposals concerning, upon their own merits, the tone of the Government’s commentary on the matter communicates a distinct disdain for what it calls a ‘rights culture’. Which I can only imagine is, by its definition, when an everyday citizen stands up and demands their Human Rights are respected and officials are held accountable.

I am wholly in favour of an individual being able to do so and I believe it is necessary, as we have lived in a nation that does not uphold Human Rights fully, for far too long. I do not believe an individuals needs ought to be interfered with for such low and vague criteria and I would not welcome this becoming normalised in our society.

An individual’s rights ought to be cherished and upheld at all times by doing that it will be of the most benefit to the ‘wider public interest’.

A persons right to rights could be judged by the court.

Now further to the point above, the Government’s disdain continues to be evident when it discusses the rights of people whose behaviour it has taken a dislike to.

It states ‘a Bill of Rights could require the courts to give greater consideration to the behaviour of claimants’. Again I believe in an individual’s Human Rights and I would not be willing for that to be deemed unnecessary due to past transgressions.

There are no definitions of what ‘behaviour’ would render an individual not worthy of their Human Rights, again this leaves it wide open for interpretation. Would a missed council tax payment from 15 years prior count? Or discussing a dislike of the Government on Social Media? This is yet again another very alarming prospect.

Even when an individual has committed a crime that requires a prison sentence, which is clearly an interference with their Human Rights as it is, that does not mean that all their other rights can or ought to then be disregarded.

I am concerned that the Government is essentially stating that you have to earn the right to your rights. This is never something I can support therefore this is another part of this reform proposal that I vehemently disagree with.

Procedural Matters

Further to the matters that I have outlined above that affect the individual I also have concerns that there are many parts of the reform that will affect the checks and balances at a Parliamentary and judicial level that we rely upon to uphold our human rights. The three main issues that concern me are:

Judicial amendments will not be allowed unless in line with the will of Parliament.
Removal of the ability to quash Statutory Instruments.

Judicial amendments will not be allowed unless in line with the will of Parliament.

We are a nation that prides itself on a common law history and we rely heavily upon case law to govern the nation. This has allowed judges to interpret the law and apply it to real world cases and to make judgements without the influence of party politics.

This has been an essential part of the checks and balances that we rely on in this country to protect us from ill-thought out legislation and undue influence from outside sources.

However under these proposals the Government will be able to be more prescriptive to the courts giving it explicit guidance that it must follow rather than allowing the judge to make interpretations and judgements, essentially preventing a judge from doing it’s job.

The courts and judges will have to abide by the will of Parliament. Therefore Parliament will rule all, including the judges and the courts. There will no longer be any separation of power.

I am against the Government giving itself such powers and I believe it could have devastating effects, if not now, but in the future as this would apply to all future Governments.

Removal of the ability to quash Statutory Instruments.

I believe that Statutory Instruments should not be used to make any significant legislation due to the fact they do not have full consideration of the Houses in the same way that Primary Legislation does. Furthermore they can be enacted and become law before the House is given any time to debate the matter, if any is even given.

This means Secretaries of State hold an enormous amount of power as we saw with Matt Hancock and the Health Regulations 2020.

Under the proposals it would prevent courts from being able to overturn any Statutory Instruments that do not uphold people’s Human Rights. This is highly concerning as it means legislation could be passed, quickly and knowingly not in line with Human Rights and there would be no mechanisms to overturn it.

Since 2014 only 14 Statutory Instruments have been overturned but where Statutory Instruments do not have full consideration of the House, and often do not have impact assessments conducted prior to enactment, it is absolutely essential that there is some method to challenge this legislation.

My belief is that each of the above points is, on an individual basis, abhorrent but all together they combine to make a chilling proposition which I do not believe anyone could be in favour of.

I note that none of the devolved nations have been involved in the construction of this proposed reform and are in fact opposed to it. Wales has issued a statement in which they also reference a letter to the Lord Chancellor Dominic Raab MP, from the Deputy First Minister of Scotland, John Swinney MSP setting out the Scottish Government’s objections too.

Furthermore in the Welsh statement they reference their own 165 page research paper on the implementation of Human Rights in Wales. The conclusion of that extensive study was that while the Human Rights Act itself is strong and appropriate it needs to be applied more thoroughly so that people’s lived experience reflects it. The conclusion was not to water it down and to take away more individual rights but in actual fact enhance it more.

There was also a lot of evidence gathered by the Independent Human Rights Review in advance of the preparation of the Governments reform proposals and the Government has seemingly ignored the majority of it. The evidence affirmed the positive benefits of the Human Rights Act and highlighted, not only the concerns for the people of this nation, but also the potential negative impact around the world if the UK is seen to be regressing in the area of fundamental human rights.

These are our fundamental human rights and these are something I believe in. I reiterate my stance that I stand against the notion of a reform from the Human Rights Act to a Bill of Rights in its entirety and believe what the Government should be focusing on is how to uphold our rights more, not less.

I believe this reform proposal does nothing to serve the individual or society; it merely increases Government control and we will, over time, lose us our fundamental human rights.

This reform must not go ahead and I look to you, as my representative in Parliament to vote it down at every opportunity.

Yours sincerely,

Dear MP,

In the wake of a truly unprecedented public response to the CBDC Consultation by the Bank of England, with over 50,000 submissions that included a significant number voicing concerns, I am reaching out to you, my elected representative. The widespread apprehension surrounding the proposed Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) is a telling testament to the profound implications it might have on our society. As your constituent, I urge you to echo these concerns and oppose CBDCs at all stages of proceedings where your say has an impact.

While acknowledging the potential advantages of a digital currency, it is essential to balance these against the far-reaching human rights implications associated with the proposed initiative. The CBDC, in its current proposed form, stands to impact privacy, economic freedom, and equality for numerous populations, as stipulated in the Human Rights Act 1998 and Equality Act 2010.

A significant concern with the proposed CBDC lies in its digital nature, which presents a significant threat to the financial independence and autonomy of vulnerable groups. Disabled individuals, particularly those living with cognitive impairments, learning disabilities, or mental health conditions, may find the digital CBDC format daunting, posing an extra hurdle to their financial independence and autonomy. Further, individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, who may lack access to necessary digital tools or sufficient internet connectivity, could face exacerbated marginalisation, deepening financial inequalities and reinforcing systemic economic disparities.

We must also consider the gendered impact of a fully digital currency. Women, particularly those in vulnerable situations such as victims of domestic abuse, often rely on the anonymity of cash transactions for their financial independence and safety. A digital pound, easily traceable and potentially controllable by an abusive partner, could significantly undermine these women’s financial freedom and amplify their vulnerabilities.

A similar exclusion risk extends to the elderly, a group often less tech-savvy and more comfortable with traditional cash transactions. Their potential struggle with the digital pound’s complexity could lead to their financial marginalisation, creating a severe socio-economic divide along age lines. This divide also extends to certain ethnic minority groups, particularly those with higher rates of poverty and digital exclusion, who might face additional challenges in accessing the digital pound, leading to the further entrenchment of systemic financial inequalities.

Such exclusionary consequences of the proposed CBDC, which may inadvertently create financial discrimination, aligns with Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, emphasising the right to education, including digital literacy. A CBDC’s successful implementation relies heavily on widespread digital literacy and equitable access to necessary technology, failing which, it may lead to the exclusion of certain populations.

Turning to the proposal that non-UK residents should have equal access to the digital pound, although in line with the principle of non-discrimination (Article 2, Universal Declaration of Human Rights), potential challenges emerge in verifying identities and complying with different jurisdictions’ regulations. These hurdles may complicate ensuring that this right is upheld, and requires careful consideration.

The proposal’s potential consequences also raise critical issues concerning financial inclusion and accessibility. The right to an adequate standard of living, as implied in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is undeniably linked to access to financial resources. If those who are unbanked or have limited access to banking services are left behind, it might engender inequality and prevent these individuals from achieving an adequate standard of living.

The CBDC’s implementation also raises concerns about over-dependence on private providers for devices and form factors necessary for accessing the digital pound. Such reliance could result in varying standards and interoperability issues, potentially infringing on individuals’ rights to freely participate in their country’s economic processes (Article 17, Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

Furthermore, the potential encroachment of the CBDC on the private sector’s role could stifle innovation by private payment service providers. This could infringe on the rights of these entities to freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development (Article 1, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights).

The proposal to set lower limits on digital pound holdings could indirectly discriminate against individuals based on wealth, excluding higher-income earners and conflicting with the principles of equality and non-discrimination (Article 2, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).

Finally, privacy and surveillance concerns are paramount. The constant monitoring and logging of transactions made using a CBDC could infringe on the right to privacy (Article 12, Universal Declaration of Human Rights). This is especially significant when considering the heightened risk of data breaches and the potential for state surveillance.

A transition to a CBDC could also cause temporary disruptions and instabilities, potentially infringing on individuals’ rights to an adequate standard of living (Article 25, Universal Declaration of Human Rights) as financial security may be temporarily compromised.

I implore the Bank and HM Treasury to take these significant human rights concerns into serious consideration when deciding on the CBDC’s future. While potential efficiency and innovation brought by a CBDC are acknowledged, these should not be pursued at the expense of human rights, equality, and economic freedom.

Thank you for considering my views. I hope to see broader and more inclusive discussions on these critical issues in the future.

Sincerely,

Your name
Your postcode

Dear MP,

I am writing to you today about my concerns regarding the Schools Bill as part of the Governments Operation Overreach to erode our rights and freedoms.

This Bill is a huge interference with private and family life. The notion that happy, healthy families have to answer to the local authority over so many aspects of their parenting and choices for education is absurd.

Of course we want to protect vulnerable and at risk children but there is already significant provisions in place to do that. This Bill will have an impact on well equipped home educators and make it almost impossible.

Further than that the penalties for not obeying this legislation and the local authorities rule are extreme. They will harm not just the parents but the children and the whole family unit.

The following points as listed by, Education Otherwise, are the ones of most concern:

S 436B Duty to register children not in school, condition ‘C’ carries an implication of a requirement for consent to remove from the school roll to home educate.
436C Content and maintenance of registers. 436D states that the parent must provide information, creating a duty to do so regardless of circumstances. There must be exceptions to this for domestic abuse victims and where the details of the parents are unknown to the parent with care.
436C (2) provides for mandatory provision of ‘any other information the local authority consider appropriate’. This provision will increase the post code lottery of LAs who demand information which is unreasonable allowing them carte blanche to make any demands of parents that they see fit.
436D Provision of information to local authorities creates duties on parents which the parent may not reasonably be able to fulfil.
436E Provision of information to local authorities: education providers. This section provides no parameters for the requirement on the LA that its belief is reasonable, or evidenced.
The definition of a person providing out-of-school education to a child is far too wide, allowing the LA to apply monetary penalties to far reaching sectors of people.
436F Use of information in the register, gives the LA the right to disclose any information that it wishes, based on its own judgment, without it necessarily having reasonable cause to do so.
436G Support, creates a nonduty on LAs as it does not create a duty to provide support other than that which the LA thinks fit.
436I Preliminary notice for school attendance order provides for too short a notice period to reasonably allow a parent to respond.
436J School attendance orders (SAO) mandates that a child must attend school throughout compulsory school age, because a parent has failed to comply with an administrative requirement. Children will be punished for matters beyond their control.
436P Revocation of school attendance order on request provides no realistic means of obtaining revocation of a SAO in the face of an obdurate LA.
50 Failure to comply with school attendance order completely overturns the ‘double jeopardy’ rule which has stood for over 800 years and which is an important protection for individuals against the abuse of state power. This is by introducing a provision that a person ‘may be found guilty of an offence under this section again if the failure continues’.
Exceptions to the scope of regulation of educational institutions do not go far enough and could bring in individual tutors, tutoring services, childminders, relatives or even some families. Tutoring facilities currently available to home educated children will be lost to them as businesses will not accept the administrative burden.

As you can see the problems with this Bill are so numerous it is almost beyond redemption. Therefore I ask you, as my elected representative, to vote against this Bill in it’s entirety at all stages.

Kind regards,

Ten Threats To Your Rights and The One Solution

But who is going to step in and protect us from Parliament today?

Us, the people.

Ready to Take Action?

Send your MP emails opposing all ten Bills now.

What Are the Ten Threats to My Rights and Why Should I Be Worried?

TAKING ACTION

Your Information

MP Information

Support Our Work

We recognise that for many of us there isn’t much spare money right now but we ask you to consider donating whatever you can, even if it is just £1.

Donating today will enable us to distribute physical copies of the “Understand and Taking Control of Your Energy Bills” to those most in need, as well as supporting the overall running of this campaign and Save Our Rights UK.

Heat and Eat

Protect Cash

Heat and Eat

Protect Cash

Next Steps to Take

Follow us on
Facebook

Follow us on
Instagram

Support our work.
Donate.

Take action.
Help shape our future.

Join us on
Telegram

Attend our
Events

Follow us on
Twitter

Resources for
Action.

Be Empowered.

Get the latest news delivered directly to your inbox.

Be Empowered.

Get the latest news delivered directly to your inbox.

CONTACT

FIND YOUR WAY

CONTACT

©2022 Save Our Rights UK Ltd. is a Social Enterprise, Limited by Guarantee and Registered in England and Wales with Company Number 12993817 • All Rights Reserved • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy • Returns Policy

BE PART OF THE SOLUTION

Donate & Help Us Maintain Our Human Rights

We rely entirely on donations from our community. Please donate today.