Told you so: When discussing replacing the Human Rights Act with Sanity, be careful how you phrase it

I seem to remember in the not too distant past mentioning below an article on ConservativeHome or somewhere that we needed to be careful how we phrase it when discussing replacing the Human Rights act with something that has a bit more sanity to it (though I can’t currently find it).

I knew this because I’d previously seen on Yahoo Answers (part of Yahoo, the 4th most popular website in the world) leftie idiots asking why UKIP want to revoke Human rights, after they’d had pretty much the same idea, which I got the best answer for correcting them with:

They don’t want to revoke human rights……… they just want to replace the ECHR’s screwed-up interpretation of Human Rights with a better version that hasn’t been written & administered by unelected complete retards who put Criminals & Terrorist’s rights above those of their victims, as some of the decisions coming from the ECHR lot in the past decade or so have started getting bloody ridiculous.

It seems my recommendation that we needed to be careful phrasing replacing Human Rights act with a British Bill of Rights, or similar sane replacements, has fallen on deaf ears, and now lefties on Facebook groups with memberships the size of a small town are posting crap like this about Conservative policies as a result (seen earlier tonight):