Referring to the letter from T Austin expressing support and exhorting others to support the LibDems in their defence of this, Tony Blair-inspired, piece of legislation (Too much 'I'm alright Jack' attitude, October 30)

I would question whether such a piece of legislation was ever required in the first place and ask if those supporting it feel comfortable with the act's ultimate appeal venue - the European Court of Human Rights.

I would also ask if people are actually aware of how the ECHR is made up and how 'judges' are appointed to this quasi-judicial body.

Simply put, the majority of the members of the court are political appointees put forward by member countries of the Council of Europe.

Some have no legal experience whatsoever and those who do are from countries we in the UK would not immediately identify as countries with a good record of human rights and open justice of the type we have enjoyed since the days of Magna Carta.

The UK is a founding member of the Council of Europe which gave birth to the ECHR. However, the court has evolved into an institution which now seeks to subvert and overrule our legal system in a way that is not in our interests as a nation.

Set alongside our 1,000 years plus of Common Law and independent judiciary, it was always a nonsense to indulge the ECHR at the expense of our judges and allow it to expand into areas which it has never had a remit.

The creation of the Human Rights Act was a political decision made by one man who gave no thought to the future ramifications of his actions - sounds a bit like Iraq doesn't it! - and the sooner we tell this court to mind its own business the better things will be.

David Patrick

Larkspur Way

Epsom