None of this means that human rights is in a state of terminal decline, or that strengthening human rights protection is unwelcome.

i read the problem as being; human rights as it is written is prone to misinterpretation and can, because of that, rebound upon itself, -for instance in giving some a sense of entitlement. -that’s the mego bit.

But we can no longer treat human rights as infallible. But unfettered criticism of human rights could also have have certain pitfalls.

which i read to mean as some then think it would be better to get rid of the human rights bill then instead.

In a context where the movement remains marginal to power, it could inhibit progress and demoralise those working within the framework.

which, basically isn’t the answer because the idea on which the human rights bill created was correct and necessary.

“Human rights are brilliant but they don’t work. So we all agree we need more of them.

But somebody who has actually looked at it thinks that applying ‘universal human rights’ may not be the correct way of enforcing our concepts of ‘social justice’.

Although ‘freedom of speech’ is a human right, iwe need to be careful applying to ‘human rights’ otherwise diversity workers and other Guardian-reading social parasites might be forced realise the true misery of their pointless existences.

You’ve missed a really dull lecture on this at University College London.”