Human Rights act and the tale of the cat

[gadgetman]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15160326

Seriously?

Whilst the daily mail readers might be queuing round the block to abolish the HRA right now, but this goes to show how low the Tories are prepared to go to make sure it happens.

I'm not saying it's perfect, or is flawless, but IF they get their way we'll all lose a lot of the rights we currently enjoy. Like our bosses not being able to make you do what they want without any comeback.

[cheezemonkhai]

Sorry, but it's broken and there is plenty of UK law, that has nothing to do with the EHCR, which protects you at work.

It allows people to stay who should not be here and allows criminals to have their rights put above their victims.

[Kandy]

There's a million laws (well almost) governing what employers can do to their employees(!), the HRA adds sweet FA. Same for everything else. The HRA is just lefty bull to be used to make minorities powerful and make politically correct thought control/actions enforceable in law. The fact that mostly criminals and deviants take advantage of it (rather than honest decent citizens) says it all. Terrorists who hate us and would kill us live here with impunity. Travellers make a mockery of planning law that everyone else has to obey etc. Christians are discriminated against. There was never intended to be a personal right to privacy in the HRA, because it was badly worded, the UK issues privacy super-injunctions protecting morally depraved people and making us the laughing stock of the world (it was supposed to give citizens privacy from the state - which has actually been massively eroded in the last 10 years without effective legal challenge - CCTV, databases, etc. etc.). Not to mention the vast sums paid by the taxpayer in legal fees to fight and bring challenges (as miraculously all these criminals get full legal aid whilst if you are honest and have a house etc., you get no help whatsoever). We don't need a HRA. we never needed it.

Edited 4 October, 2011 by Kandy

[Reavenger]

Agree with 2 above posts. Straw polls from newspapers show most people want it scrapped in some form.

[lol-lol]

Agree with 2 above posts. Straw polls from newspapers show most people want it scrapped in some form.

News-papers? You mean the right wing instruments of Murdoch and othe big businesses?

Their opinion is not valid.

The story about the cat is not even true, it was not a factor in the deportion decesion just something the defence mentioned to show the person's establishing themself in the UK. Rather silly but just a throw away line.

Theresa May showed herself to be the stupid, poorly researched person she clearly is. To compare her to Jack Straw's deep thinking weighing of factors is deeply worrying.

The "Conservatives" clearly would love a return to Victorian "society" and everything should be done to expose their agenda, difficult when Murdoch and his instruments, Sky, Sun, Times etc support the right wing agenda.

Edited 5 October, 2011 by lol

[cheezemonkhai]

News-papers? You mean the right wing instruments of Murdoch and othe big businesses?

Their opinion is not valid.

The story about the cat is not even true, it was not a factor in the deportion decesion just something the defence mentioned to show the person's establishing themself in the UK. Rather silly but just a throw away line.

Theresa May showed herself to be the stupid, poorly researched person she clearly is. To compare her to Jack Straw's deep thinking weighing of factors is deeply worrying.

The "Conservatives" clearly would love a return to Victorian "society" and everything should be done to expose their agenda, difficult when Murdoch and his instruments, Sky, Sun, Times etc support the right wing agenda.

Ignoring everything else you've put, which is quite frankly a load of rubbish, lets focus on your comment that "Their opinion is not valid".

Why is the "right wing's" opinion (as you put it) any less valid than any other. Does it mean we should ignore all poles by the BBC/Guardian as they are all pretty hard left leaning these days?

Every news source has a bias, and it's not the paper, but the facts behind it that count.

Just because there are a large number of lefties around, doesn't mean the right leaning person has an opinion which is any less valid.

Actually I'd say that the right leaning groups represent the views of a normally quiet group of people and as such is very important for a balanced debate.

[KenONeill]

At best the "story" about the cat is incompetence by TM or her researchers; at worst it is a flat-out lie.

What makes the "right wing" opinions invalid is that they actually believe this sort of Daily Snail bilge, and act on that instead of on the actual facts.

[grr666]

The "Conservatives" clearly would love a return to Victorian "society".

Suits me.

Back then children were disciplined and knew their place, unlike now.

Half the world didn't want to live here because we didn't dish out free money, unlike now.

The police were still a force, unlike now.

In those days we really were world leaders and not Americas lapdog, unlike now.

You really could leave your front door open, unlike now.

We had industry and manufacturing in the UK back then, unlike now.

People had a sense of shame, unlike now.

Criminals were treated like criminals rather than victims, unlike now.

Prison was not a nice place to be, unlike now.

Bring it back I say.

And my right wing opinion is no more or less valid than someones opposite

view but I'll be lambasted for having it anyway.

Sorry if the lentil brigade find it unpalatable but it's how I feel.

[cheezemonkhai]

At best the "story" about the cat is incompetence by TM or her researchers; at worst it is a flat-out lie.

What makes the "right wing" opinions invalid is that they actually believe this sort of Daily Snail bilge, and act on that instead of on the actual facts.

So the left wing believe all the grundian bilge. Like I said they are both valid opinions.

Just because the UK has a higher state employment than many communist countries and a higher social bill than income tax, does not mean that everyone has to be happy with this.

['daiking']

Their opinion is not valid.

Spoken like a true socialist

[cheezemonkhai]

Spoken like a true socialist comrade

[gadgetman]

At best the "story" about the cat is incompetence by TM or her researchers; at worst it is a flat-out lie.What makes the "right wing" opinions invalid is that they actually believe this sort of Daily Snail bilge, and act on that instead of on the actual facts.

Which is what May was hoping for.

They're itching to get rid of a raft of our rights, especially those relating to employment. Such scaremongering only fuels the argument making a victory for them more likely.

A bit like when in approx 2000/1 the Mail had a headline story that 'whites' would be a minority by 2012, Islam would be the main language in the UK, and there'd be more immigrants in the UK than people born here.

How much of that is actually true? But it gets the home counties sharpening their pitchforks!

[cheezemonkhai]

Which is what May was hoping for.

They're itching to get rid of a raft of our rights, especially those relating to employment. Such scaremongering only fuels the argument making a victory for them more likely.

A bit like when in approx 2000/1 the Mail had a headline story that 'whites' would be a minority by 2012, Islam would be the main language in the UK, and there'd be more immigrants in the UK than people born here.

How much of that is actually true? But it gets the home counties sharpening their pitchforks!

Which part of the EHCR not relating to your employment rights don't you get?

As for part 2 of your question, well many immigrant families in the UK (not all) are having children at a rate of 2 to 1 compared to middle class people, so there will be a majority of voters from that background within a generation or two (Assuming this continues as it is)

You lambast the mail for making headlines without full background, but so do all the other papers.

You've done exactly the same, as where are your quotes from the UK implementation of the ECHR showing how they are intended to affect employment?

[lol-lol]

Spoken like a true socialist

My point is that the UK unfortunately has people such as Murdoch and Vicount Rothmere who own the Sun and the Mail respectively and clearly use these instruments to further their own business interest, like something out of 1984's Minitrue ie Ministry of Truth.

Murdoch, and Australian/US citizen and Vicount Rothmere, (bio below), would of course have a UK vote if they were UK Citizens, but they have influence, over the ill informed and those incapable of reasoned argument or thought, that does effect election results to our detrement and those who look at our democracy can only see Britian as a bigoted society.

==========================================================================================================================================================

He held various positions in Associated Newspapers and was Managing Director of the Evening Standard when the sudden death of his father resulted in his becoming the controlling shareholder [2] and Chairman of Associated and of its parent Daily Mail and General Trust plc just before his 31st birthday. One notable change he has instituted is requiring directors to retire at age 75. He ranked 51st in the Sunday Times Rich List 2006 with an estimated wealth of £1,020 million. In March 2008 it was announced that his sister-in-law, Lady Francis Russell, had married Mark Thatcher.[3] Rothermere is a supporter of the Conservative Party leader David Cameron.[4]

Lord Rothermere is registered as "non-domiciled" in Britain. This status was inherited from his father, who spent most of his life as a resident of France. This status allows Rothermere to not pay tax in England.[5] _Wikipedia

===========================================================================================================================================================

Edited 6 October, 2011 by lol

['daiking']

My point is that the UK unfortunately has people such as Murdoch and Vicount Rothmere who own the Sun and the Mail respectively and clearly use these instruments to further their own business interest, like something out of 1984's Minitrue ie Ministry of Truth.

Murdoch, and Australian/US citizen and Vicount Rothmere, (bio below), would of course have a UK vote if they were UK Citizens, but they have influence, over the ill informed and those incapable of reasoned argument or thought, that does effect election results to our detrement and those who look at our democracy can only see Britian as a bigoted society.

==========================================================================================================================================================

He held various positions in Associated Newspapers and was Managing Director of the Evening Standard when the sudden death of his father resulted in his becoming the controlling shareholder [2] and Chairman of Associated and of its parent Daily Mail and General Trust plc just before his 31st birthday. One notable change he has instituted is requiring directors to retire at age 75. He ranked 51st in the Sunday Times Rich List 2006 with an estimated wealth of £1,020 million. In March 2008 it was announced that his sister-in-law, Lady Francis Russell, had married Mark Thatcher.[3] Rothermere is a supporter of the Conservative Party leader David Cameron.[4]

Lord Rothermere is registered as "non-domiciled" in Britain. This status was inherited from his father, who spent most of his life as a resident of France. This status allows Rothermere to not pay tax in England.[5] _Wikipedia

===========================================================================================================================================================

Are they forming public opinion or mirroring public opinion?

What's the Guardian's take on this? Is an organisation that hides behind a charity to avoid paying tax allowed an opinion?

Media = dirty

Politics = dirty

[fabdavrav]

Back then children were disciplined and knew their place, unlike now.

Half the world didn't want to live here because we didn't dish out free money, unlike now.

In those days we really were world leaders and not Americas lapdog, unlike now.

People had a sense of shame, unlike now.

Criminals were treated like criminals rather than victims, unlike now.

Prison was not a nice place to be, unlike now.

+1

Edited 6 October, 2011 by fabdavrav

[gadgetman]

Which part of the EHCR not relating to your employment rights don't you get?

From the 1st link on a search, most relevant bits picked - http://www.elc.org.uk/pages/lawhra.htm

*Protection from slavery and forced or compulsory labour (article 4)

*The right to a fair trial (article 6) - ref disciplinary actions

*Protection from retrospective criminal offences (article 7) - ref disciplinary actions

*The protection of private and family life () - also part of Working time directives

* Freedom from discrimination (article 14)

*Convention Rights

The rights listed above are known as Convention rights. They will therefore have an impact on areas such as criminal law, family law, housing law, employment law and education law. By Article 1 of the Convention, countries who have signed up to the Convention must secure the above rights for everyone in their jurisdiction and individuals must also have an effective remedy to protect those rights in the country's courts without the need to go to the European Court of Human Rights. The role of the European Court of Human Rights will be to determine whether the domestic courts have been true to the Convention. All national courts and tribunals must take into account the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

The Human Rights Act will cover England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The Act does not create any new criminal offences, but does apply to the criminal courts.

The Act does not take away or restrict any existing human rights recognised in a country.

The Act binds public authorities, (bodies undertaking functions of a public nature), for example, government departments, local authorities, courts, bodies running nursing and residential homes, schools etc. Those public authorities must not breach an individual's rights. It is unclear whether the Act is designed to apply in claims brought by one individual against another individual. However, it is likely that statutory interpretation may extend the rights protected by the Human Rights act across the board.

I'll leave you to read the rest for yourself.

So again, you think the HRA's removal wouldnt impact your life and can simply be binned on a whim or media hysteria?

[cheezemonkhai]

The points you have raised were never meant for employment and are already well covered in existing laws.

Why don't we bend every law to cover everything.

Since you know the law so well, which are the only points of the EHCR which are mandatory?

The rest of the act can be disregarded under plenty of criteria.

Seriously, using the human rights act for employment cases is a stretch of reality.

Just because a left leaning environmental law page on the web says something, doesn't mean that's how it's interpreted.

I also somehow doubt that's how it was ever meant.

Don't forget that UK law has statute, but that interpretation of this is covered by the case law which makes up a lot of the UK law.

Edited 7 October, 2011 by cheezemonkhai

[KenONeill]

The rest of the act can be disregarded under plenty of criteria.

Seriously, using the human rights act for employment cases is a stretch of reality.

Are you seriously suggesting that every dismissal in the UK actually follows due legal process?

['daiking']

The UK must have been a really ****ty place to live then, pre HRA.

[cheezemonkhai]

Are you seriously suggesting that every dismissal in the UK actually follows due legal process?

If it doesn't you can take them to court without having to rely on the HRA, so I don't see where you're going with this point.

[gadgetman]

The points you have raised were never meant for employment and are already well covered in existing laws.Why don't we bend every law to cover everything.Since you know the law so well, which are the only points of the EHCR which are mandatory?The rest of the act can be disregarded under plenty of criteria.Seriously, using the human rights act for employment cases is a stretch of reality.Just because a left leaning environmental law page on the web says something, doesn't mean that's how it's interpreted.I also somehow doubt that's how it was ever meant. Don't forget that UK law has statute, but that interpretation of this is covered by the case law which makes up a lot of the UK law.

As you are aware, the HRA simply joined the dots of the EHRA and UK law. The 2 although both legal standards, unlike other EU members, wasnt referred to in law. We had our own versions of the law, and as the main creators of the EHRA much was the same. The HRA is simply formally relating UK and EU laws - something which was always the case anyway.

The laws were and still are pretty much the same as they were.

You have access to the net, so can find your own less 'lefty' links on the net which will show you the same subject areas are covered by the HRA

If it doesn't you can take them to court without having to rely on the HRA, so I don't see where you're going with this point.

As above the HRA is a formal recognition in UK law of the EHRA which has had a great impact on many other areas of law and has afforded people here and in the EU protection in many areas - employment being one of them. HS laws which make your workplace safe. Working time directives, driving hours for bus & HGV drivers.

Essentially what is being played is the immigration card, and the HRA is being tagged as the root of all evil in this regard.

Remember the business leaders are back in charge, and arent so keen workers are safe from chucking out on their ears. Employers no longer reward loyalty and hard work as they did a decade or more ago. Bosses are itching to get rid of staff more easily.

Reducing the reasons unions can strike, making it harder for them to ballot (Some of it I agree with, some of I dont),

increasing the time you need to be in a job before you have any likelyhood of a successful employment claim from 1 to 2 years (business leaders wanted 3),

making it easier to dismiss staff for a 1st offence no matter how minor,

reducing redundancy rights and payments (was take of reducing to 0.75 weeks for every year service and/or capping at 10 years),

sickness and maternaty rights to reduce their financial obligations (SSP only after 5 consecutive days sick, reducing maternity liabilities and time off, removal of paid paternity leave)

Perhaps workers have too many rights, but I bet you're happy at those rights being in your contract. And that's thanks to the EHRA and HRA that you have them. Along with healthcare, education, freedom of speech and travel....

I'm sure you could get a North Korea visa if you'd like to see life without HRA? Perhaps Sudan?

[cheezemonkhai]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15272121

Another case of the HRA being abused by large groups of people and the act stopping us from doing what we like to protect our country.

People regularly use arranged marriage to get the right to come here (and often claim off the state/use the NHS etc) when they have no right and have even been refused through many other paths.

Time to get out or renegotiate it I'm afraid.

[gadgetman]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15272121

Another case of the HRA being abused by large groups of people and the act stopping us from doing what we like to protect our country.

People regularly use arranged marriage to get the right to come here (and often claim off the state/use the NHS etc) when they have no right and have even been refused through many other paths.

Time to get out or renegotiate it I'm afraid.

This is the EHRA. I think even the UN HR cover this as well, so there would always be some HR law which would need to be followed.

Again this smells of using immigration to abolish (E)HRA. As I said earlier, be careful what you wish for. What you end up with may end up working against you.

[Can]

Simple answer Bring back National Service and you get Benifits vote etc after your national service.

It's simple and keeps those voting to those that have earned the right to vote.