advertisement


Tory Britain

That is incredible behaviour to direct at another human being

Small town mentality though, whilst it wonderful to know practically everyone in town it can also turn the other way for those who build resentment and direct it at others rather than taking stock of their own pitiful narrow minded existence.
 
Well said, I’m a motability user and got my first motability car, VW Tiguan DSG 3 years ago when my spms ramped up as I couldn’t get into never mind drive my mk2 golf gti :(. Paid £2000 deposit and pay £259 month so it’s not cheap/free. I mainly use it to go across town (1mile) to my mothers every day and a 60 mile round trip once a fortnight so my mum or a mate can get shopping, in 3 years I’ve not even done 9000 miles.

Despite staying in a small Galloway town and everyone knowing me/my condition and how much of on active lifestyle I used to have, not to mention how fiercely independent I was and (raced mtb/mtb skills coach and mtb guiding in uk so it’s quite a blow to rely on my mum/and closest mate for my continuing existence) there is still some visceral hate. Had the car keyed right down one side, tyres slashed and benefit scum written on it with marker (my bro found out who did that…………extremely messy outcome for that individual), I just don’t understand the hate towards those who rely on benefits, compared to semi-legitimate tax evasion the money that can be attributed to benefit fraud is an utter pittance but I guess we’re an easy target for the self righteous out there.
Jesus!
I’m fuming at your experience.
I hope the members on here that are self proclaimed “experts” on benefit fraud read this and are ashamed.
 
I really don't think abolishing the 1998 Human rights act would be the death knell for liberty some are hinting at. It was largely a minor and ineffectual piece of legislation, with the main bugbear being the 'right to a family life', and all the other important bits like freedom of expression sidelined. Not that the Tories are in any way real champions of freedom of speech, or freedom of anything. For them getting rid of this act yet another virtue signal to their supposed 'base', which means little in real legal terms.
 
I really don't think abolishing the 1998 Human rights act would be the death knell for liberty some are hinting at. It was largely a minor and ineffectual piece of legislation, with the main bugbear being the 'right to a family life', and all the other important bits like freedom of expression sidelined. Not that the Tories are in any way real champions of freedom of speech, or freedom of anything. For them getting rid of this act yet another virtue signal to their supposed 'base', which means little in real legal terms.
So thats all right then...
Bollocks.
 
Bollocks seems to be a popular retort here on PFM, I'm guessing it's a middle aged male thing to do with the loss of testosterone? But excuse me, which of those rights do you think weren't already protected before the 1998 Human rights act?
Obviously these rights already existed in the ECHR, however the HRA means that they are justiciable in British courts without the need to take expensive and lengthy cases in Strasbourg.
So I'm asking again since you avoided the question, which of these rights don't you want? How is freedom of expression sidelined? It is there, article 10, with the same status as all the other articles. In what way is article 8 a "bugbear"?
 
Obviously these rights already existed in the ECHR, however the HRA means that they are justiciable in British courts without the need to take expensive and lengthy cases in Strasbourg.
So I'm asking again since you avoided the question, which of these rights don't you want? How is freedom of expression sidelined? It is there, article 10, with the same status as all the other articles. In what way is article 8 a "bugbear"?
You're merely stating verbatim the acts themselves, rather than the results of those acts in the UK. Freedom of expression may well be there in 'article 10', but it's been under attack here in the UK for decades, where is the fightback against that? So I ask you, which of those rights DON'T YOU WANT? Btw I want all of those rights, but we already had them before the 1998 HRA.
 
Another day, another Tory caught being racist on social media (Guardian).
This was funny,

“I’ve been compromised and I’ve reported it to the police,” she said. The Tory Party seem to agree she’s compromised and are sending her on a training course not to be racist.
 
You're merely stating verbatim the acts themselves, rather than the results of those acts in the UK. Freedom of expression may well be there in 'article 10', but it's been under attack here in the UK for decades, where is the fightback against that? So I ask you, which of those rights DON'T YOU WANT? Btw I want all of those rights, but we already had them before the 1998 HRA.
We may or may not have had them before the HRA - often fragmentary and disperate legislation is not enforced as it is when under the umbrella of a singly aimed piece of legislation. To have rhat legislation removed, and targeted watering down of the existing, remaining and now vestigial rights leaves us in a worse place than pre HRA.
In answer to your dig at me perhaps not being qualified for a legal career by virtue of the brevity of my reply to you, I'd point out that of the six words I used, as far as your post went, five were superfluous.
Though perhaps tory apologist toss might have been a more targetted rebuttal.
 
You're merely stating verbatim the acts themselves, rather than the results of those acts in the UK. Freedom of expression may well be there in 'article 10', but it's been under attack here in the UK for decades, where is the fightback against that? So I ask you, which of those rights DON'T YOU WANT? Btw I want all of those rights, but we already had them before the 1998 HRA.
The HRA sets down, as a matter of law, that government has to give effect to these rights in everything it does, and it sets out the limits on when the rights can be overridden. It is a massively important protection, and lots of other legislation is derived from it, prescribed by it, or is constrained by it. Things like PACE - the rules the police work to; or the investigatory powers act which sets limits on government snooping; even things like data protection, are all rooted in the preservation of these rights. Weaken those rights, and you weaken the effectiveness of many, many important laws and controls within society. It’s the thread that holds a lot of other stuff together, unravel it carefully lest you end up naked.

If we relied instead on our signature to the UN Declaration on Human Rights, don’t you think this government might already have plans to break that ‘in limited and specific ways’ if it chose to?
 
The HRA sets down, as a matter of law, that government has to give effect to these rights in everything it does, and it sets out the limits on when the rights can be overridden. It is a massively important protection, and lots of other legislation is derived from it, prescribed by it, or is constrained by it. Things like PACE - the rules the police work to; or the investigatory powers act which sets limits on government snooping; even things like data protection, are all rooted in the preservation of these rights. Weaken those rights, and you weaken the effectiveness of many, many important laws and controls within society. It’s the thread that holds a lot of other stuff together, unravel it carefully lest you end up naked.

If we relied instead on our signature to the UN Declaration on Human Rights, don’t you think this government might already have plans to break that ‘in limited and specific ways’ if it chose to?

Excellent post Sue. The I'll just add that the Universal Declaration is a fine set of principles but has no legal force in Britain. A Government that is ready to dump the HRA is hardly likely to grant any force to another set of human rights principles.
 
The HRA sets down, as a matter of law, that government has to give effect to these rights in everything it does, and it sets out the limits on when the rights can be overridden. It is a massively important protection, and lots of other legislation is derived from it, prescribed by it, or is constrained by it. Things like PACE - the rules the police work to; or the investigatory powers act which sets limits on government snooping; even things like data protection, are all rooted in the preservation of these rights. Weaken those rights, and you weaken the effectiveness of many, many important laws and controls within society. It’s the thread that holds a lot of other stuff together, unravel it carefully lest you end up naked.

If we relied instead on our signature to the UN Declaration on Human Rights, don’t you think this government might already have plans to break that ‘in limited and specific ways’ if it chose to?
Like the previous poster, you take the Human Rights act 1998 at face value, rather than looking at how it's performed in practice. Take RIPA for instance, the Tories IPA (2016) significantly increased the surveillance powers of the state, the HRA dd not stop this from happening.. The UK does not have to even obey the European courts decisions, merely to take them into account. Despite being subject to its laws, the HRA has done nothing to stop the Tories or Labour before them from infringements on our right to protest, or our freedom of speech.
 
Last edited:
Like the previous poster, you take the Human Rights act 1998 at face value, rather than looking at how it's performed in practice. Take RIPA for instance, the Tories IPA (2016) significantly increased the surveillance powers of the state, the HRA dd not stop this from happening.. The UK does not have to even obey the European courts decisions, merely to take the into account. Despite being subject to its laws, the HRA has done nothing to stop the Tories or Labour before them from infringements on our right to protest, or our freedom of speech.

Seems to me these are arguments for strengthening the HRA. Also the issues you mention are qualified not absolute rights and governments would claim that the restrictions they imposed were necessary and proportionate.
Obviously this is open to question and challenge but HRA cases can only be brought by people directly affected, obviously a long and expensive process. A third party, for example a voluntary organisation or the EHRC, cannot challenge the government in court on whether the HRA has been breached by a particular law.
You still haven't explained why the right to family life is a "bugbear".
 
I object to the word "benefits", it's almost like it was brought in by the Tories to suggest a great giving of gifts to the unworthy. I prefer the term "social security".
A human right would be even better


Article 25.
  1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
 


advertisement


Back
Top