Well who saw that coming?
Comments
-
Separate question, and not a rhetorical one - why are the Conservatives so keen on getting rid of the Human Rights Act in the UK? Seems a big scramble to get it done in the Queen's speech.0
-
TGOTB wrote:The impression I get is that evil regimes either change the law to suit their own requirements
Of course if you want to be particularly facetious given the current election outcome, you could say that's exactly what this "evil regime" is about to do!
(Fixed quote!)Cannondale CAADX Tiagra 2017
Revolution Courier Race Disc '14
My Strava0 -
-
I don't think there's any need for an evil regime. We've already had the Met spying on serving MPs and some prominent victims of crime without access to email data. Then there is the issue of the security of any data that is stored.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Separate question, and not a rhetorical one - why are the Conservatives so keen on getting rid of the Human Rights Act in the UK? Seems a big scramble to get it done in the Queen's speech.
The main reason for this would be the perpetuation of their powers, by:
Removing the Right to life
Allows Gove to bring back capital punishment (which is Gove's chosen path to reducing the prison population) and more importantly, kill all those annoying lefties that weren't persuaded by the Smellygraph and the Faily Dale.
Repealing the Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
Allows lazy operatives to torture enemies because sticks are easier to wield effectively than carrots.
Removing the Right to liberty and security
Means the police force and army can be sold to the highest bidder and don't have to protect you if you can't pay up afterwards.
Eliminating the Freedom from slavery and forced labour
On the one hand this means we can have Zero Hours contracts that are also Zero Pay
on the other, behind every powerful man... David Cameron's wife can take up her legacy
No Right to a fair trial?
No chance of a fair trial for political prisoners or Friends of the Conservatives
No punishment without law
Guilt by presumption and circumstance.
Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence
Allows the snoopers charter and legalises what GCHQ was built for.
If there is no Freedom of thought, belief and religion
Then finally we can impose atheism (or more likely Toryism) on the masses and use the above to punish dissenters.
If there is no Freedom of expression then artists tories don't like can be persecuted.
Freedom of assembly and association
Protests, what protests?
Right to marry and start a family
Lets means test people before letting them breed!
Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms
See slavery!
Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
It simply isn't enough to steal ~£3000 per year from the average tax payer in order to line the pockets of their banker chums, next the tories will start stealing your houses, cars, bikes and more importantly restrict your (legal) ability to sell/share/give your stuff to other people without taking a cut. Then there's the games/film/music industry getting the content restrictions they want imposed on digital media.
Right to education
The more educated you are the less likely you are to subscribe to absolutist, extreme or right wing viewpoints. 35 years of To(n/r)y rule an selection based on religion and wealth has ensured that the general public are stupid enough to vote in a party with a tried and tested right wing agenda despite the pain suffering and death inflicted on those denied benefits, the disabled, the sick etc...
Right to participate in free elections
Tory dictatorship here we come!
Funny how we have celebrated 75 years defeating one of the most vile, vicious, despicable regimes in history, the Nazi's, then elect one of the most vile, vicious, despicable regimes in history of the the Uk.I used to just ride my bike to work but now I find myself going out looking for bigger and bigger hills.0 -
Hyperbole, much?Initialised wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Separate question, and not a rhetorical one - why are the Conservatives so keen on getting rid of the Human Rights Act in the UK? Seems a big scramble to get it done in the Queen's speech.
The main reason for this would be the perpetuation of their powers, by:
Removing the Right to life
Allows Gove to bring back capital punishment (which is Gove's chosen path to reducing the prison population) and more importantly, kill all those annoying lefties that weren't persuaded by the Smellygraph and the Faily Dale.
Repealing the Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
Allows lazy operatives to torture enemies because sticks are easier to wield effectively than carrots.
Removing the Right to liberty and security
Means the police force and army can be sold to the highest bidder and don't have to protect you if you can't pay up afterwards.
Eliminating the Freedom from slavery and forced labour
On the one hand this means we can have Zero Hours contracts that are also Zero Pay
on the other, behind every powerful man... David Cameron's wife can take up her legacy
No Right to a fair trial?
No chance of a fair trial for political prisoners or Friends of the Conservatives
No punishment without law
Guilt by presumption and circumstance.
Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence
Allows the snoopers charter and legalises what GCHQ was built for.
If there is no Freedom of thought, belief and religion
Then finally we can impose atheism (or more likely Toryism) on the masses and use the above to punish dissenters.
If there is no Freedom of expression then artists tories don't like can be persecuted.
Freedom of assembly and association
Protests, what protests?
Right to marry and start a family
Lets means test people before letting them breed!
Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms
See slavery!
Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
It simply isn't enough to steal ~£3000 per year from the average tax payer in order to line the pockets of their banker chums, next the tories will start stealing your houses, cars, bikes and more importantly restrict your (legal) ability to sell/share/give your stuff to other people without taking a cut. Then there's the games/film/music industry getting the content restrictions they want imposed on digital media.
Right to education
The more educated you are the less likely you are to subscribe to absolutist, extreme or right wing viewpoints. 35 years of To(n/r)y rule an selection based on religion and wealth has ensured that the general public are stupid enough to vote in a party with a tried and tested right wing agenda despite the pain suffering and death inflicted on those denied benefits, the disabled, the sick etc...
Right to participate in free elections
Tory dictatorship here we come!
Funny how we have celebrated 75 years defeating one of the most vile, vicious, despicable regimes in history, the Nazi's, then elect one of the most vile, vicious, despicable regimes in history of the the Uk.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Separate question, and not a rhetorical one - why are the Conservatives so keen on getting rid of the Human Rights Act in the UK? Seems a big scramble to get it done in the Queen's speech.
They want to capitalise on the current disarray of the opposition to get it through. They want to redraft the UK law to remove what they see as "excessive" interpretations of human rights by the courts in Strasbourg, and remove the authority of the European Court of Human Rights. So they'll introduce a new "British" Human Rights bill to replace the existing one. From their paper:The key objectives of our new Bill are:
Repeal Labour’s Human Rights Act.
Put the text of the original Human Rights Convention into primary legislation. There is nothing wrong with that original document, which contains a sensible mix of checks and balances alongside the rights it sets out, and is a laudable statement of the principles for a modern democratic nation. We will not introduce new basic rights through this reform; our aim is restore common sense, and to tackle the misuse of the rights contained in the Convention.
Clarify the Convention rights, to reflect a proper balance between rights and responsibilities.
This will ensure that they are applied in accordance with the original intentions for the Convention and the mainstream understanding of these rights.
Break the formal link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights.
In future Britain’s courts will no longer be required to take into account rulings from the Court in Strasbourg. The UK Courts, not Strasbourg, will have the final say in interpreting Convention Rights, as clarified by Parliament.
End the ability of the European Court of Human Rights to force the UK to change the law.
Every judgement that UK law is incompatible with the Convention will be treated as advisory and we
will introduce a new Parliamentary procedure to formally consider the judgement. It will only be binding in UK law if Parliament agrees that it should be enacted as such.
Prevent our laws from being effectively re-written through ‘interpretation’
In future, the UK courts will interpret legislation based upon its normal meaning and the clear intention of
Parliament, rather than having to stretch its meaning to comply with Strasbourg case-law.
Limit the use of human rights laws to the most serious cases.
The use of the new law will be limited to cases that involve criminal law and the liberty of an individual, the right to property and similar serious matters. There will be a threshold below which Convention rights will
not be engaged, ensuring UK courts strike out trivial cases. We will work with the devolved administrations and legislatures as necessary to make sure there is an effective new settlement across the UK.
Limit the reach of human rights cases to the UK
so that British Armed forces overseas are not subject to persistent human rights claims that undermine their ability to do their job and keep us safe.
We will amend the Ministerial Code to remove any ambiguity in the current rules about the
duty of Ministers to follow the will of Parliament in the UK.
https://www.conservatives.com/~/media/f ... rights.pdfCannondale CAADX Tiagra 2017
Revolution Courier Race Disc '14
My Strava0 -
rjsterry wrote:
Hyperbole, much?Initialised wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Separate question, and not a rhetorical one - why are the Conservatives so keen on getting rid of the Human Rights Act in the UK? Seems a big scramble to get it done in the Queen's speech.
The main reason for this would be the perpetuation of their powers, by:
Removing the Right to life
Allows Gove to bring back capital punishment (which is Gove's chosen path to reducing the prison population) and more importantly, kill all those annoying lefties that weren't persuaded by the Smellygraph and the Faily Dale.
Repealing the Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
Allows lazy operatives to torture enemies because sticks are easier to wield effectively than carrots.
Removing the Right to liberty and security
Means the police force and army can be sold to the highest bidder and don't have to protect you if you can't pay up afterwards.
Eliminating the Freedom from slavery and forced labour
On the one hand this means we can have Zero Hours contracts that are also Zero Pay
on the other, behind every powerful man... David Cameron's wife can take up her legacy
No Right to a fair trial?
No chance of a fair trial for political prisoners or Friends of the Conservatives
No punishment without law
Guilt by presumption and circumstance.
Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence
Allows the snoopers charter and legalises what GCHQ was built for.
If there is no Freedom of thought, belief and religion
Then finally we can impose atheism (or more likely Toryism) on the masses and use the above to punish dissenters.
If there is no Freedom of expression then artists tories don't like can be persecuted.
Freedom of assembly and association
Protests, what protests?
Right to marry and start a family
Lets means test people before letting them breed!
Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms
See slavery!
Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
It simply isn't enough to steal ~£3000 per year from the average tax payer in order to line the pockets of their banker chums, next the tories will start stealing your houses, cars, bikes and more importantly restrict your (legal) ability to sell/share/give your stuff to other people without taking a cut. Then there's the games/film/music industry getting the content restrictions they want imposed on digital media.
Right to education
The more educated you are the less likely you are to subscribe to absolutist, extreme or right wing viewpoints. 35 years of To(n/r)y rule an selection based on religion and wealth has ensured that the general public are stupid enough to vote in a party with a tried and tested right wing agenda despite the pain suffering and death inflicted on those denied benefits, the disabled, the sick etc...
Right to participate in free elections
Tory dictatorship here we come!
Funny how we have celebrated 75 years defeating one of the most vile, vicious, despicable regimes in history, the Nazi's, then elect one of the most vile, vicious, despicable regimes in history of the the Uk.
A well thought out and reasoned post undermined by an inability to do simple sums - almost feels like an anecdote.
Repealing Human Rights Act will be about the next time a murdering rapist re-offends for the umpteenth time and then says that deporting him to somewhere like Somalia will be a breach of his human rights. It is political grandstanding but a shrewd move to help win EU referendum (imo)0 -
Hilarious.
Farage has withdrawn his resignation after the UKIP leadership rejected it, meaning he stays as leader.
Who saw that coming?0 -
Pretty much everyone I expect. UKIP = Farage. The papers don't much care for the party, but Farage gurning with a pint and a fag still seems to interest the Mail.elbowloh wrote:Hilarious.
Farage has withdrawn his resignation after the UKIP leadership rejected it, meaning he stays as leader.
Who saw that coming?
Only way I can see them avoiding disappearing without trace is to keep him in place while they build up the personalities of some deputies.0 -
Read another good quote in the FT with regard to the new terrorism bill.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1e767dd6-f8c4 ... z3a0K4WvhfAddressing the council, the prime minister is expected to say that the UK has been “neutral” on questions of opposing values. “For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone,” he will say.
:?0 -
Coupled to the snoopers charter, which allows the monitoring of all communications devices in the Country irrespective of whether the person is suspected of a crime. As well drafting a British Bill of Rights, which will replace the European law of Human Rights is there any doubt that this Government will create a police state?Rick Chasey wrote:Read another good quote in the FT with regard to the new terrorism bill.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1e767dd6-f8c4 ... z3a0K4WvhfAddressing the council, the prime minister is expected to say that the UK has been “neutral” on questions of opposing values. “For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone,” he will say.
:?
And more widely lets look at this:
Snoopers charter
Changes to the legislation around when an industrial strike can be launched
Removing job seekers and housing benefits allowance from 18 - 21 year olds
British Bill of Rights replacing the European law of Human Rights
EU In/Out Referendum
(Talk of) Removing the right to statutory maternity leave
(Talk of) Privatising the BBC
(Talk of) Changing the election boundaries so its harder to get them out of power
It has not even been a week! What have we voted into Government? What the Tories are doing is taking the minority negative elements, the minority abusers of the system and using their actions to pass laws that will restrict the civil liberties of the law abiding majority.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone,” he will say.
About time.
What this country needs is some aggressive intolerance.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Coupled to the snoopers charter, which allows the monitoring of all communications devices in the Country irrespective of whether the person is suspected of a crime. As well drafting a British Bill of Rights, which will replace the European law of Human Rights is there any doubt that this Government will create a police state?DonDaddyD wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Read another good quote in the FT with regard to the new terrorism bill.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1e767dd6-f8c4 ... z3a0K4WvhfAddressing the council, the prime minister is expected to say that the UK has been “neutral” on questions of opposing values. “For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone,” he will say.
:?
And more widely lets look at this:
Snoopers charter
Changes to the legislation around when an industrial strike can be launched - seems reasonable
Removing job seekers and housing benefits allowance from 18 - 21 year olds - [b]bizarrely Blair/Brown oversaw a tenfold increase in Housing benefit which is a massive state subsidy for the private rented sector and a cause of the housing bubble[/b]
British Bill of Rights replacing the European law of Human Rights - seems fair to me
EU In/Out Referendum - Let's put this issue to bed
(Talk of) Removing the right to statutory maternity leave - source please
(Talk of) Privatising the BBC - whoever made this up should be ashamed of themselves
(Talk of) Changing the election boundaries so its harder to get them out of power - this has been on the cards for years and Cameron widely seen as a fool for not having done it already
I am genuinely staggered by how badly the left has reacted to this defeat... the level of scaremongering is beyond belief.0 -
I'm not scaremongering. Calm down. I thought it was an odd quote to make. That leaving citizens who obey the law alone has been going on too long! I mean, seriously.
--
BBC privatisation is being discussed because the new minister for culture is on record saying that the licence fee is "worse than a poll tax" and ultimately "unsustainable".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvan ... e-BBC.html
There is even some talk that Tories put some pressure on the BBC to change their election coverage because they felt it was biased, which puts the minister appointment into some context.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... octor.html
(I've chosen a paper which went out of its way to support the Conservatives, even sending an unsolicited letter out to their database urging them to vote tory).0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:I'm not scaremongering. Calm down. I thought it was an odd quote to make. That leaving citizens who obey the law alone has been going on too long! I mean, seriously.
--
BBC privatisation is being discussed because the new minister for culture is on record saying that the licence fee is "worse than a poll tax" and ultimately "unsustainable".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvan ... e-BBC.html
There is even some talk that Tories put some pressure on the BBC to change their election coverage because they felt it was biased, which puts the minister appointment into some context.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... octor.html
(I've chosen a paper which went out of its way to support the Conservatives, even sending an unsolicited letter out to their database urging them to vote tory).
sorry the scaremongering comment was not aimed at you - it was a more general comment about the articles being posted on my social media feeds predicting an imminent collapse in society. I am horrified at what the Guardian publishes as it legitimises these views and scares the less well educated.
I am sure you are familiar with Roy Greenslade and whilst I do not agree with his politics do find him to be a good journalist. He wrote a very good article in last nights Standard http://www.standard.co.uk/business/medi ... 46931.html0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Changes to the legislation around when an industrial strike can be launched - seems reasonable
Just on this one (full disclosure, I am a trade unionist), you're comment that it "seems reasonable" is a good example of not understanding the issues, or being complicit in anti-trade union laws.- We do not have minimum voting quotas elsewhere, in far more important areas of life such as who runs our entire country.
- Neither do we specify minimum levels of support in our elections, other than simple majority
- We allow people to vote, or not, as they choose, however if they choose not to vote this is not the same as saying "no".
- If the same ballot requirements were put on the Tory cabinet half of them would have failed - yet it's ok for them to govern us.
- The government refuses to allow a modern voting system (e.g. on electronic devices) to be put in place, and has never updated the law from 1992 which insists on "postal only" voting, knowing that this has a detrimental effect on participation.
- Under the proposed system you could have a 99% majority yes vote for industrial action, yet still be prevented from undertaking a perfectly legal and internationally protected form of protest, simply because you didn't meet a quota of people engaging. An abstention carries more weight than a "no" vote!
Trade union members do not enter industrial action lightly. There will usually have been months of negotiations before it gets to the stage where members would consider industrial action (unless of course the employer simply refuses to engage in negotiations at all).
It is very costly for members to take industrial action. Every day they do not work they lose a day's pay. This is not something people take lightly and they only do it under the most pressing circumstances to stand up for their rights or against changes they see as harmful to them or the service they provide. There is no compulsion to engage in strike action even when there is a yes vote. Members and non-members alike are legally protected to make their own decision on whether they work or not.
We already have some of the toughest anti-trade union laws in the western world, and the UK has, even without these changes, been called to task time and time again by the European Committee on Social Rights (and other international organisations), saying for example earlier this year: "The Committee concludes that the situation in the United Kingdom is not in conformity with Article 6§4 of the 1961 Charter on the grounds that: the possibilities for workers to defend their interests through lawful collective action are excessively limited;"
So why do the Tories want this? Because this is anti-trade union legislation pure and simple. The Tories know that the only shred of credible resistance to their continued plans of decimation of public services is the trade unions, so they're determined to make sure that they skew the system to remove any last balance of power.Cannondale CAADX Tiagra 2017
Revolution Courier Race Disc '14
My Strava0 -
TimothyW wrote:
Strongly agree. It is disgusting MPs trying to impose anti-union 'democratic' requirements that they themselves would fail to meet.Seajays wrote:*snip*
I take all of your points but when the Tube drivers go on strike over somebody being sacked for driving the train whilst pissed (and was his second disciplinary case for this offence) then yes I believe the situation should be looked at.0 -
I suspect the scaremongering comment is aimed at me.
I'm a teenager, I receive mental health services but I'm not unwell enough to be sectioned. As an 18 year old I've just left the care system. I can't get housing benefits where do I go?
I'm 18, I'm pregnant/have a child and I can't get housing benefits. What happens to me?
My issue with removing housing benefits and job seekers allowance from the "feckless youth" is that it assumes that all 18 - 21 year old are feckless sitting at home playing X-box. It doesn't allow for differing circumstances (let alone the exceptional stuff). Nope, lets throw them all in one bucket, pour water in and only those who can swim will survive.
Does it make you feel empowered or that you somehow strengthen your argument by attempting to belittle the education/intelligence of those who believe the other side of the story you choose to ignore?Surrey Commuter wrote:I am horrified at what the Guardian publishes as it legitimises these views and scares the less well educated.
Just because you choose to deny or refuse to accept the legitimacy of the reports being published, dismissing them as 'left wing' (as though being "left" equates to lies) doesn't make them any less valid. It was people like you during the last election who claimed that the NHS would be safe in Tory hands, it wasn't - the health and social care bill came out of nowhere and went deeper than anyone within the health industry imagined, it resulted in the largest top down re-organisation of the NHS, cost millions didn't improve health outcomes and opened the door for private sector organisations to make unlimited profit from public funded contracts. Cameron promised no more top down re-organisation of the NHS and that any rants to the contrary from the Left was scaremongering.
May I advise that instead of querying the education of others, you use your own to challenge your self limiting bias.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:TimothyW wrote:
Strongly agree. It is disgusting MPs trying to impose anti-union 'democratic' requirements that they themselves would fail to meet.Seajays wrote:*snip*
I take all of your points but when the Tube drivers go on strike over somebody being sacked for driving the train whilst pissed (and was his second disciplinary case for this offence) then yes I believe the situation should be looked at.
So if a small group (relative to the entirety of all the trade unions and their members) choose to abuse the system it is right to punish the entire industry?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:TimothyW wrote:
Strongly agree. It is disgusting MPs trying to impose anti-union 'democratic' requirements that they themselves would fail to meet.Seajays wrote:*snip*
I take all of your points but when the Tube drivers go on strike over somebody being sacked for driving the train whilst pissed (and was his second disciplinary case for this offence) then yes I believe the situation should be looked at.
I don't know any of the details of this (and I assure you there is generally much more to things than the media reports), however odd exceptional cases should not be used to justify the removal of an entire section of rights designed to ensure the balance of power in our society.
It's worth noting that most unsavoury regimes in the world outlaw the right to strike (and trade unions). Indeed many people are still killed in the world today for trying to organise to protect themselves and their colleagues from unscrupulous employers and governments. This is an important right, and like many of these things, whilst we may not always personally agree with every decision made, we allow the erosion of these rights at our peril.Cannondale CAADX Tiagra 2017
Revolution Courier Race Disc '14
My Strava0 -
How are the Trade Unions going to protest/contest/complain about this piece of legislation?Seajays wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:TimothyW wrote:
Strongly agree. It is disgusting MPs trying to impose anti-union 'democratic' requirements that they themselves would fail to meet.Seajays wrote:*snip*
I take all of your points but when the Tube drivers go on strike over somebody being sacked for driving the train whilst pissed (and was his second disciplinary case for this offence) then yes I believe the situation should be looked at.
I don't know any of the details of this (and I assure you there is generally much more to things than the media reports), however odd exceptional cases should not be used to justify the removal of an entire section of rights designed to ensure the balance of power in our society.
It's worth noting that most unsavoury regimes in the world outlaw the right to strike (and trade unions). Indeed many people are still killed in the world today for trying to organise to protect themselves and their colleagues from unscrupulous employers and governments. This is an important right, and like many of these things, whilst we may not always personally agree with every decision made, we allow the erosion of these rights at our peril.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
How are the Trade Unions going to protest/contest/complain about this piece of legislation?Seajays wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:TimothyW wrote:
Strongly agree. It is disgusting MPs trying to impose anti-union 'democratic' requirements that they themselves would fail to meet.Seajays wrote:*snip*
I take all of your points but when the Tube drivers go on strike over somebody being sacked for driving the train whilst pissed (and was his second disciplinary case for this offence) then yes I believe the situation should be looked at.
I don't know any of the details of this (and I assure you there is generally much more to things than the media reports), however odd exceptional cases should not be used to justify the removal of an entire section of rights designed to ensure the balance of power in our society.
It's worth noting that most unsavoury regimes in the world outlaw the right to strike (and trade unions). Indeed many people are still killed in the world today for trying to organise to protect themselves and their colleagues from unscrupulous employers and governments. This is an important right, and like many of these things, whilst we may not always personally agree with every decision made, we allow the erosion of these rights at our peril.
That I don't pretend to know - it's something that, if it does manage to get through parliament (and both the commons and the lords permit it), would have to challenged legally I would imagine. That whole area is likely to be a rapidly changing space in the coming months.Cannondale CAADX Tiagra 2017
Revolution Courier Race Disc '14
My Strava0 -
You would be surprised how eclectic my political opinions are...DonDaddyD wrote:I suspect the scaremongering comment is aimed at me.
Nope
I'm a teenager, I receive mental health services but I'm not unwell enough to be sectioned. As an 18 year old I've just left the care system. I can't get housing benefits where do I go?
I'm 18, I'm pregnant/have a child and I can't get housing benefits. What happens to me?
My issue with removing housing benefits and job seekers allowance from the "feckless youth" is that it assumes that all 18 - 21 year old are feckless sitting at home playing X-box. It doesn't allow for differing circumstances (let alone the exceptional stuff). Nope, lets throw them all in one bucket, pour water in and only those who can swim will survive.
My point is that Housing Benefit has crept up to an annual cost of £20bn. I see this as a transfer of wealth to private landlords so fueling the housing bubble so ways should be found to reduce it.
Does it make you feel empowered or that you somehow strengthen your argument by attempting to belittle the education/intelligence of those who believe the other side of the story you choose to ignore?Surrey Commuter wrote:I am horrified at what the Guardian publishes as it legitimises these views and scares the less well educated.
I feel that The Guardian should apply the same editorial standards to online as it does print. I do not worry about intelligent people reading this rubbish. You can swap the names of the paper for the Mail which I am sure would be printing similar rubbish if the Tories had lost
Just because you choose to deny or refuse to accept the legitimacy of the reports being published, dismissing them as 'left wing' (as though being "left" equates to lies) doesn't make them any less valid. It was people like you during the last election who claimed that the NHS would be safe in Tory hands, it wasn't - the health and social care bill came out of nowhere and went deeper than anyone within the health industry imagined, it resulted in the largest top down re-organisation of the NHS, cost millions didn't improve health outcomes and opened the door for private sector organisations to make unlimited profit from public funded contracts. Cameron promised no more top down re-organisation of the NHS and that any rants to the contrary from the Left was scaremongering.
NHS is too big a topic for here but my position is that £110bn a year should be enough.
May I advise that instead of querying the education of others, you use your own to challenge your self limiting bias.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:
My point is that Housing Benefit has crept up to an annual cost of £20bn. I see this as a transfer of wealth to private landlords so fueling the housing bubble so ways should be found to reduce it.
And so it is right that a minority group - in this case young people between 18 - 21 - should be disadvantaged?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:
My point is that Housing Benefit has crept up to an annual cost of £20bn. I see this as a transfer of wealth to private landlords so fueling the housing bubble so ways should be found to reduce it.
And so it is right that a minority group - in this case young people between 18 - 21 - should be disadvantaged?
I never said that0
