FabSwingers.com forum: Human Rights Act

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Prime Minister David Cameron and Home Secretary Theresa May this weekend said they wanted to see the controversial Human Rights Act scrapped.

is this a good idea to scrap it ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ENGUYMan
over a year ago

Hull

Yep!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

i think we need human rights,what we dont need is the pc take it too far bragade,,oh and while we are on the political soap box ,scrap the fucking tory party ,if they had there way they would have all but a few back tugging our cloth caps

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

And a big yes from me too

We need something that's for sure

But it certainly ain't that as it stands now xx

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

it we could not scrapped who would you have in Labour again the fucked us up big time and the lib dems are no good i think the Tories will get it right soon clean up the mess that brown got us in .

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ldestswingerintownMan
over a year ago

Lancaster

a bit of literacy would be nice...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ENGUYMan
over a year ago

Hull

"i think we need human rights,what we dont need is the pc take it too far bragade,,oh and while we are on the political soap box ,scrap the fucking tory party ,if they had there way they would have all but a few back tugging our cloth caps"

The problem is that Labour introduced the Human Rights Act, but it was "tuned" more to be in line with its European counterpart, rather than allowing us to make our decisions.

Unfortunately, the "do-gooder" and "banging the drum for rights" lawyers, organisations and even the judiciary have had a field day using this act for their own twisted means, such that we have terrorists, criminals and so on whom we can't deport for various implausible reasons or deal with as we should, without someone calling "foul"!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

"Prime Minister David Cameron and Home Secretary Theresa May this weekend said they wanted to see the controversial Human Rights Act scrapped.

is this a good idea to scrap it ? "

that is very vague because there are some very very good and important bits in the act.. so to scrap all of it would be silly and stupid...

so it would make sense to argue which bits of the human rights act you want to see taken out or ammended...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ldestswingerintownMan
over a year ago

Lancaster

Nnd it's often not the actual "human right" that is the problem, more the way it's applied by officials and the judicairy. The problems always come in the grey areas!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

GENGUY who would you want in if the tories got kicked out ? Ed Miliband could be worse than gordon brown.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Prime Minister David Cameron and Home Secretary Theresa May this weekend said they wanted to see the controversial Human Rights Act scrapped.

is this a good idea to scrap it ?

that is very vague because there are some very very good and important bits in the act.. so to scrap all of it would be silly and stupid...

so it would make sense to argue which bits of the human rights act you want to see taken out or ammended..."
yes i agree with you on this one

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No, keep it, but it can't be used to prevent your known punishment.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ENGUYMan
over a year ago

Hull

"GENGUY who would you want in if the tories got kicked out ? Ed Miliband could be worse than gordon brown."

If you look at my post, you'll see I have not advocated for the Tories to be kicked out - that was someone else who proposed that.

What I should have said is that the Human Rights Act needs to be rethought and thinned down; don't do away with it totally.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

what human rights act? When the crap really does hit the fan, we as humans, don't have any

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

oh please,, forget about the lit,listen to the tories over the last week ,they are still blaming labour ,not forgeting they have been in power for two years now, now i was never a suporter of brown ,but under the tories we can already seing enployment rights and many other basic rights of the genarel public slipping back,would you have things return to the days where enployers could have us work for as little as what they wanted to pay .while the fat cats sat on imoral amounts of cash,,a good example is ,, a good friend of mine works for a filling station chain, they have been told that any short fall in tills are to be deducted from there wages,IE, drive offs theft promos not being promoted,they have been asked to sing a sheet alowing the company to make the deductions ,they have refused ,they have now all been thretend with the sack ,,is that right ,Reply please,Would you work for low pay, before bad old labour brought in min wages bill

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"GENGUY who would you want in if the tories got kicked out ? Ed Miliband could be worse than gordon brown.

If you look at my post, you'll see I have not advocated for the Tories to be kicked out - that was someone else who proposed that.i know you did not say but who would you like to be in power still i dont like the tories but the last goverment got it wrong but i do think the tories will get it right soon we hope .

What I should have said is that the Human Rights Act needs to be rethought and thinned down; don't do away with it totally."

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

hosta.. that is why i am asking people to be specific, because I don't think some realise how much of uk law is enshrined within that act.. for example.. minimum wages, that to say "scrap the entire act" is nonsensical...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

i agree _enguy rethought but dont forget our people need protection ,we seem to suport the rights of everyone ells but forget about our own british people look after us ,while we are on the subject of us why do our goverments give milions to other countrys like india ,but cant finance our hospitals and schools .always cuts

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

I am waiting on someone to fall into the trap of using the example the home secretary used yesterday... please... someone..anyone!!!

I think it is actually more scary that the people at the top of the tree have no idea of what they are talking about...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

To be honest I imagine you would find more Tory MP's on this site than Labour.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

yep _abio i agree ,however i do think if the tories had there way it would be scraped and we would be back down at the bottom kids back up lums and out working at 14, only those who could aford it would go to uni ,these torys are still living back in the begging your pardon sir days ,drag your lazy never done a days work in your life asses into this century and stop being so victorian

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

_abio,we think so alike

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *taffs_hotwifeCouple
over a year ago

Wolverhampton

"Nnd it's often not the actual "human right" that is the problem, more the way it's applied by officials and the judicairy. The problems always come in the grey areas!"

You ask for a bit of literacy and then type that.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Comedy Dave should scrap himself.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ldestswingerintownMan
over a year ago

Lancaster

I misspelt "and" as "Nnd" - apart from that it's totally gramatically and logically correct and a lot more sensible than your ridiculous contributions

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ENGUYMan
over a year ago

Hull

"oh please,, forget about the lit,listen to the tories over the last week ,they are still blaming labour ,not forgeting they have been in power for two years now, now i was never a suporter of brown ,but under the tories we can already seing enployment rights and many other basic rights of the genarel public slipping back,would you have things return to the days where enployers could have us work for as little as what they wanted to pay .while the fat cats sat on imoral amounts of cash,,a good example is ,, a good friend of mine works for a filling station chain, they have been told that any short fall in tills are to be deducted from there wages,IE, drive offs theft promos not being promoted,they have been asked to sing a sheet alowing the company to make the deductions ,they have refused ,they have now all been thretend with the sack ,,is that right ,Reply please,Would you work for low pay, before bad old labour brought in min wages bill"

I think here that you are unfortunately mixing up issues and blaming it on the Tories. You are saying that employment rights are slipping back to the days of employers working us for little and the fat cats sitting on their profits.

But didn't those fat cats sit on their profits under Labour's time in power?

As for you friend's plight at their work in a filling station, having to make up any shortages in the tills etc, isn't a new idea. I've known of several types of cash handling jobs where this clause has been included in Terms and Conditions of employment. Yes, some companies might include it during employment, as they may well have experienced unaccountable shotages in takings and cannot pin-point any particular cause or even any thief, so they introduce it as a "cover all options" clause.

I've worked in a filling station, and drive offs are an unfortunate fact of life, but in our case, we had a very good CCTV system, and we generally were able to retrieve suitable footage to pursue the thieves through the Police and win our case.

As for your friend's predicament, to me, it seems that as the employer wants to introduce a new clause into their Contract, it is in effect a change in their contract with their employer. The employee does have a right not to sign without a full and proper consultation period being allowed. The company cannot dictate "sign or you will be sacked!" - that is illegal, and if it reached a Tribunal, the company would possibly be on very thin ice! Your friend should seek advice from ACAS or via the local CAB, even a Union if they are a member.

But their problem with the employer is nowt to do with whatever political party is or isn't in power!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

actually I was trying to keep it out of being a politican discussion and focus on the actual act itself...

yes there are bit that could be ammended.. but since the OP was about scrapping the act entirely, I wanted to know just exactly which bits they wanted removed???

and that is the answer that not one person who wants it gone has answered yet!!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *obbytupperMan
over a year ago

Menston near Ilkley

Mrs Blair made quite a nice little earner introducing this legislation. That alone should say it all!!!!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *taffs_hotwifeCouple
over a year ago

Wolverhampton

"I misspelt "and" as "Nnd" - apart from that it's totally gramatically and logically correct and a lot more sensible than your ridiculous contributions"

Put your dummy back in and go look up the correct spelling for 'judiciary'.

It's people like you that give these forums a bad name.

What difference does it make regarding someones literacy on a forum such as this? People make mistakes so get over yourself.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ldestswingerintownMan
over a year ago

Lancaster

I think one misspelling is not quite the same as (quote) "it we could not scrapped who would you have in Labour again the fucked us up big time" which is just gibberish

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ENGUYMan
over a year ago

Hull

"I misspelt "and" as "Nnd" - apart from that it's totally gramatically and logically correct and a lot more sensible than your ridiculous contributions"

Errm! You have shot yourself in the foot here! You did spell judiciary incorrectly!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So this thread was political...and has now become a spelling test ????

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *taffs_hotwifeCouple
over a year ago

Wolverhampton

"I think one misspelling is not quite the same as (quote) "it we could not scrapped who would you have in Labour again the fucked us up big time" which is just gibberish"

I think I've proved my point so I'll leave it there.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *taffs_hotwifeCouple
over a year ago

Wolverhampton

"So this thread was political...and has now become a spelling test ????"

I have no problem with peoples spelling, what I hate with a passion is those that feel the need to belittle someone else over simple mistakes to make themselves look clever.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
Forum Mod
over a year ago

This thread which could have been a really interesting read is fast becoming a playground nit picking zone

So what if someones spelling or grammar is'nt perfect?

You can understand the points made can't you? why not concentrate on that instead? instead of trying to score points on spelling

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I don't think anybody should have the human right to an opinion on it.

Here we go with the "PC gone mad!" and the accusations of being a "Brigade" to try to gain some sense of moral superiority. The Kneejerk Nutter Brigade, they are.

Most cases of "PC gone mad" have nothing to do with the Human Rights Act, not that the Mail will tell you that while your knee is jerking away about Muslims being given free mansions and Bentleys.

Teresa May said she wanted it scrapped because "It causes politicians problems." Hmnm, seems human rights always cause politicians problems in every country in the world. Gee, let's give up all our rights to make things easier for Teresa May. AFter all, there are innocent Brazilians to gun down on the underground on suspicion of being terrorists.

First they came for the communists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

"what human rights act? When the crap really does hit the fan, we as humans, don't have any

Kind of agree - our rights and freedoms have been eroded, in all kinds of ways in this country, and much of the west.

I'm for keeping the Human Rights Act: if there are problems with it, then consider ensuring that legislation is amended, to make sure that it's relevant, not open to any abuse. As for Theresa May- I think Ken Clarke was spot on, as she's likely to be fabricating her stories of extreme circumstances before the courts.

Other legislation may need amending too, to ensure that it's clear which laws take priority over others. Whilst all people deserve basic human decency, there are terrorists etc that should not be able to warp legislation so that it enables them to escape full justice etc. (That's not to say that terrorists, and others who have perpetrated vile crimes, should be denied respect and humanitarian rights).

Remember, we mainly have a right wing media here, much of which has colluded with parties from all sides: their reporting of 'news' is typically morphed, so that it supports their own agendas, or other news strangely does not appear at all. (Much like how their 'apologies' don't appear with the same prominence as their articles, and are as good as hidden away).

I support equality for all, decent human rights, a restrained media that's not self regulating and a financial services sector that's hamstrung rather than holding the world to ransom. We're being led into an era, by stealth, where the gap between the elite ultra rich and the majority of our population is increasing, where we're almost becoming like slaves, being used as fodder to further enrich the obscenely powerful and rich. These people would likely very happily return us all to a former era, where we do their every bid. I'm glad we have the HRA, it's been a breath of fresh air for me, whilst much else has gone wrong in our world. We really can't expect to invade other countries, on the pretext of helping to create democracy and rights for citizens, whilst dismantling our own.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The Human Rights Act was a well conceived piece of legislation when it was first put forward but over the years since into came into effect it has been hijacked and turned into something altogether nasty by many different types of institutions and individuals. One of the worst culprits were the last Labour govt who, in their quest to drag us kicking and screaming into a Federal Europe, against our will, and without the promised referendum, screamed RAAAAAACIST!! at anyone who dared to criticise the Human Rights Act.

A new British Bill of Rights is something I'd support so long as it is not permitted to be hijacked in the way the HRA has been, otherwise it's a waste of time and money and we'll have to do this all over again in ten years time.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

thankyou for your comments on this issue _enguy,very helpfull ,however this does not alter the fact that they are trying it on ,i would suspect this is a buling at work,as for resentment towards the tory party ,you just have to look at there track record in the past ,towards enployees rights ,is this not a human rights issue, i think it is,,just take a look at the thatcher years ,miners ship workers and all because thatcher took a dislike to the unions,,and as fro my friend they are constantly getting threts form the top for shortfalls that are no fault of there own i run public houses and understand that forge notes and the like are not always detected when you are busy ,but this company still take the short fall out of enployees wages ,why , should the enployee have to pay for some plep comiting fraud,, i feel that we will go backwards under a tory goverment ,and no new labour were far from perfect but Hay,

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ittlemorespiceCouple
over a year ago

North Cornwall

Im not an expert on exactly what this act covers but know enough to think it would be impossible to scrap unless it was replaced by some other act which was more sensible and better at combatting discrimination and basic human rights. Therefore it needs either some tough editing or replacing with something less open to abuse and able to be interpreted in a sensible practical way so that it doesnt continue to put up pensionable ages and insurance rates!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

" i feel that we will go backwards under a tory goverment ,and no new labour were far from perfect but Hay,"

Far far far from perfect, in fact! Unprecedented levels of immigrants were allowed to swarm into the UK completely unchecked and unrestricted because of the last Labour govt.

Our national debt spiralled out of control due to Brown's berserk attitude towards public spending, yet he still managed to sell off half of our gold reserves when the market was at absolute rock bottom for gold! huh? wtf?? even a child can work out what a stupid move that was!

Part of me thinks that Labour deliberately elect Scottish leaders of the party in some sort of act of revenge for Culloden!

The Tories may not be doing everything they can but they've done a damned sight more in two years than Labour did in ten.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ensualfire88Man
over a year ago

Edinburgh

Did someone say 'spelling test'?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ushroom7Man
over a year ago

Bradford

"This thread which could have been a really interesting read is fast becoming a playground nit picking zone

So what if someones spelling or grammar is'nt perfect?

You can understand the points made can't you? why not concentrate on that instead? instead of trying to score points on spelling"

Off topic entirely, but may i just say what an intersting read this posters profile pics are.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ushroom7Man
over a year ago

Bradford

"I don't think anybody should have the human right to an opinion on it.

Here we go with the "PC gone mad!" and the accusations of being a "Brigade" to try to gain some sense of moral superiority. The Kneejerk Nutter Brigade, they are.

Most cases of "PC gone mad" have nothing to do with the Human Rights Act, not that the Mail will tell you that while your knee is jerking away about Muslims being given free mansions and Bentleys.

First they came for the communists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me."

You missed out gingers

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Just realised our profile name may proclude us from commenting on this - not intentional!!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ushroom7Man
over a year ago

Bradford

First and foremost, i have no Human Right to a job at someone else's expense.

Anyone notice that the legal sysytem is devised by lawyers, run by lawyers for the benefit of lawyers?

We, the people, are just incidental.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'd rather we decide what constitutes as human rights rather than the overtly socialist EU. In fact I'd prefer if the EU didn't impose any laws on us. In my eyes the only benefits from the EU stem from free trade. So why don't we keep that and scrap the rest.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oole2010Couple
over a year ago

southampto

teresa may said at yesterdays conference that the part of the hra to be amended was article 8 which covers human rights on family life at the moment it covers everyone including terrorists and foreign criminals she wants to rewrite article 8 so it will take these people partially out of the equation meaning that if you blow up a bus or threaten or are involved in causing terrorist acts you may be deported without question and you cant use a girlfriend etc as an excuse the same goes for some of the 10,000 or so foreign criminals languishing in our prisons some no doubt rapists and paedophiles do we really want these type of people to stay in our country heaven forbid we seem to have enough of our home grown doing that the labour party scrapped the last of the treason bill which did include the destruction of her majestys naval bases for which carried an instant death penalty so heres the predicament do we deport these undesirables or set them free after they have served their sentence to which they can perhaps bomb our cities or rape women ? id rather deport them and keep the law abiding citizens safe ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I remember the days when we knew what was right and its laws like this on the statute books that word twisting lawyers can distort to end up making those in the right become wrong.

I loved the Tudors. He was wrong. He shall be hanged, his privvee parts removed, he shall have his entrails spread and each quarter of his body send to each country of the british islands and his head placed on a pike till the crows peck it to the bones.

You only have to hear that once to know how to behave. But of course its against human rights to go hanging, drawing and quartering these days....

Far rather go to prison to get your o levels you tossed off as a teen. They let you have an x box too if your really good at washing up.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The basis of the human rights act is a guide line of what is acceptable treatment of a person irespective of race, religious beliefs, physical condition, sexual orientation and all points in between.

However when clever layers use the act to pervert the course of justice, then it has one huge flaw, in which case it should be scrapped.

I have read the act during my years as an NCQ trainer as certain parts were relivant to the course I taught, namely, the discrimination sections, which again form part of our discrimination laws.

If we are to keep the act, then it should be made illegal to use it as a defence against criminal prosecution, or to avoid deportation as a result of criminal activity

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

get yer guns oot n storm the parliament n kill the lot of em!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

"Prime Minister David Cameron and Home Secretary Theresa May this weekend said they wanted to see the controversial Human Rights Act scrapped.

is this a good idea to scrap it ? "

Did they say they wanted to scrap the Human Rights Act....or have you just stretched the truth a little to suit your own arguments?

What is being looked at is the re-writing of Article Eight of the Human Rights Act, just that part, not all of it.

And it's not only Britain that is suggestion this but also Germany, Italy and France. They all agree that the good intentions of this part of the Act are being abused.

And they are right for asking for this to be re-addressed by the EU, they also have full backing of the opposition on this point.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

"it we could not scrapped who would you have in Labour again the fucked us up big time and the lib dems are no good i think the Tories will get it right soon clean up the mess that brown got us in ."

What has that got to do with the Human Rights Act?....or was it just an excuse to voice your real gripes?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Jane, I think you'll find that Cameron said just this week that he'd prefer a British Bill of Rights to supercede the Human Rights Act. He's on record for saying it repeatedly over the course of the last 18 months.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15171910

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

"Jane, I think you'll find that Cameron said just this week that he'd prefer a British Bill of Rights to supercede the Human Rights Act. He's on record for saying it repeatedly over the course of the last 18 months.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15171910"

He hasn't said it on record since the election though has he?...the reason?

Britain cannot legally withdraw from the Act without a new EU treaty, he knows that....it is all well and good sabre rattling in opposition but when the hard reality of holding the office of Prime Minister sets in he (and many Prime Ministers before him, including Blair) soon realise that there is more to law making than a few soundbites.

When Andrew Marr interviewed him he skirted around the issue, he re-iterated that he would prefer a Bill of Rights based on the American system rather than the Human Rights Act....but he had no answer when Marr pulled him up on the little fact that the vast majority of the 1998 Human Rights Act is based on the European Convention on Human Rights...which we are tied into under the Treaty of Lisbon.

Of course we could also withdraw from the EU.....which Cameron states would be financially suicidal, I don't know about that....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *leasureDomeMan
over a year ago

all over the place

" i feel that we will go backwards under a tory goverment ,and no new labour were far from perfect but Hay,

Far far far from perfect, in fact! Unprecedented levels of immigrants were allowed to swarm into the UK completely unchecked and unrestricted because of the last Labour govt.

Part of me thinks that Labour deliberately elect Scottish leaders of the party in some sort of act of revenge for Culloden!

The Tories may not be doing everything they can but they've done a damned sight more in two years than Labour did in ten."

despite the immigration blip a result of eastern countries joining the Eurozone and legitimately moving here to work...despite all of that we are still 53rd of 179 countries in terms of immigrant per peopulation with a figure of 8.92 ,countries above us Austria ,Singapour,oman .brunei,etc etc etc.

The lets bash brown rhetoric is so old hat now ,i have proved to you many times wishy the level of debt per gdp is at best slightly higher than our national average ,interestingly its gone up since the tory and libs took the reigns,lowest its been is under brown and major ,our average debt is 9.7% of gdp ,despite the dopnt panic dont panic for 2 years it is now 11.9% having risen for 2 years under the coalition. The highest it has been is in early 1950 when it was 250% of gdp

sort of puts it into perspective doesnt it and shows the lie the torys have come up with, to move to privatisation of public services and throw 500.000 workers on the scrap heap.. Remeber the NHS is safe in my hands....cameron is definately sone of Thatcher,and the libs ...living a nightmare.

Re human rights act in europe ,i want it only as we do not have our own written constitution.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Brown was in favour of a Bill of Rights and a written constitution...

Muted that it could be published for the 800 th anniversary of the Magna Carta..

Britain has always had parlimentary soverienty anyway..

We could repeal the Act..anytime we wished..

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

"Brown was in favour of a Bill of Rights and a written constitution...

Muted that it could be published for the 800 th anniversary of the Magna Carta..

Britain has always had parlimentary soverienty anyway..

We could repeal the Act..anytime we wished.."

We can indeed repeal the Human Rights act of 1998, it was an Act of Parliament after all....but seeing as over 90% of the Human Rights Act of 1998 is based word for word on the European Convention of Human Rights then it would be a pointless waste of time.

You see to abolish the European Convention of Human Rights we would have to force a new EU treaty that overides the Lisbon Treaty.....or walk from our membership of the EU.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

There is the European Convention of Human Rights....if we repealed the Act...primarily because we have parlimentary sovierenty...then any citizen would be at perfect liberty to take their case to Strasburg...like the days of old...parliment passed the Act...so people didn`t have to do that..

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 05/10/11 20:53:14]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

To avoid confusion there is the European Convention of Human Rights..

And...British Parliments..The Human Right Act..its aim was to give further effect in UK law to the rights contained in the European Convention of Human Rights...which is wholly seperate from the EU...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *leasureDomeMan
over a year ago

all over the place

"Brown was in favour of a Bill of Rights and a written constitution...

Muted that it could be published for the 800 th anniversary of the Magna Carta..

Britain has always had parlimentary soverienty anyway..

We could repeal the Act..anytime we wished..

You see to abolish the European Convention of Human Rights we would have to force a new EU treaty that overides the Lisbon Treaty.....or walk from our membership of the EU."

And believe it or not those options are being debated in the tresury ,foreign office and number 10 right now ,they consider the euro debacle a once in 25 year opportunity to get some leverage in europe as the franco /german alliance is on rocky ground at the moment..

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Brown was in favour of a Bill of Rights and a written constitution...

Muted that it could be published for the 800 th anniversary of the Magna Carta..

Britain has always had parlimentary soverienty anyway..

We could repeal the Act..anytime we wished..

You see to abolish the European Convention of Human Rights we would have to force a new EU treaty that overides the Lisbon Treaty.....or walk from our membership of the EU.

Not fergetting the leverage and interest of America, China, Russia in wanting a change in Europe...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I wonder how many people appreciatte that the Human Rights Act...is based mainly on Churchills gift to Europe after the War.....countries coming out of totalitarian regimes had Britains principles to lead the way...

Apologies to thems that know that already..

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Of course we could also withdraw from the EU.....which Cameron states would be financially suicidal, I don't know about that...."

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland

"Of course we could also withdraw from the EU.....which Cameron states would be financially suicidal, I don't know about that....

It seems suicidal to remain in it at the moment. How many more of our so called EU partners are going to come to us with their begging bowls to bail them out of a folly we rightly remained separate from. "
I believeat the moment Germany is the main donor... and the Germans are getting a bit fed up with it...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"sort of puts it into perspective doesnt it and shows the lie the torys have come up with, to move to privatisation of public services and throw 500.000 workers on the scrap heap.. Remeber the NHS is safe in my hands....cameron is definately sone of Thatcher,and the libs ...living a nightmare. "

We have a huge deficit that has to be addressed. Forget who's fault it is that we have such a deficit for the moment, let's concentrate on how to reduce it.

The govt are responsible for meeting the needs of the populace, correct?

Those needs have to be paid for, but to pay them we have to have enough money at hand, correct?

We don't have enough money to meet our needs AND pay off our debts. What do we do?

We could do what Greece, Italy, Eire and several other countries teetering on the brink of the abyss are contemplating and simply tell our creditors to piss off. We could do that, couldn't we? We'd have to accept a downgrading of our status within the financial markets which would make further borrowing more expensive, which is a false economy, or, we could address the issues at home that is placing us in such a predicament - and that is to reduce govt expenditure and the only way to do that is to trim the workforce employed directly by the govt.

You cannot make 2 + 2 = 5, ever.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

The Tories may not be doing everything they can but they've done a damned sight more in two years than Labour did in ten."

your not serious surely!

just what have dave and his millionaire mates in the cabinet done in their tenure?

apart from several u turns that is

and made a lot of people unemployed

etc etc

ffs they cant keep saying it was labour this and brown that, (like all governments they did feck some things up, this lot will do the same its a cyclical game) they need to say what they are going to do which at the present time seems not a lot to promote growth.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If you research there are many issues that have had a positive out come re human rights, but it doesn't seems to work for everyone, eg virtual slavery in some countries, lack of access to water and basic food etc.

Some people have been misappropriating it. Shame on them, as I think we do need it in the world.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *leasureDomeMan
over a year ago

all over the place

We have a huge deficit that has to be addressed. Forget who's fault it is that we have such a deficit for the moment, let's concentrate on how to reduce it.

The govt are responsible for meeting the needs of the populace, correct?

Those needs have to be paid for, but to pay them we have to have enough money at hand, correct?

We don't have enough money to meet our needs AND pay off our debts. What do we do?

You cannot make 2 + 2 = 5, ever."

you are talking as if this debt is something new wishy it isnt and at the moment is 2.1% above its average level,it is higher in monetry terms but as gdp has risen so has the cash value.

Labour did not start the worlkd recession even the most ardent tory is now saying its a hollow arguament to suggest they did .

In fact the best figures we have had since the recession are in the first quarter after brown left office proving his methods had begun to swing us into real growth.

As predicted by the economists and many on here ,the cuts were too deep and too quick,the effects are being felt right now ,govt borrowing is higher than ever as tax reciepts are down ..and if you seriously compare the economy of this country to greece and ireland you really have swollowed the whole spin and nothing but the spin ...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *urreyfun2008Man
over a year ago

East Grinstead

Politics - easy to make promises in opposition as you know you can wiggle out of them often when in power.

Alas in a global economy the economic flexibility of one country is limited.

Those who want no or less immigrants, how many people these days are willing to take low paid and long hours as fruit pickers.

Some things I read make me think, some thing we can cut the UK off from the world and survive. Alas we need many imports from around the world to just survive, unless we all go back to growing our own food again.

Whatever happens, perhaps there should be a new rule, only those vote in elections have a right to moan when things go wrong.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"you are talking as if this debt is something new wishy it isnt and at the moment is 2.1% above its average level,it is higher in monetry terms but as gdp has risen so has the cash value.

Labour did not start the worlkd recession even the most ardent tory is now saying its a hollow arguament to suggest they did .

In fact the best figures we have had since the recession are in the first quarter after brown left office proving his methods had begun to swing us into real growth.

I know it's not new debt and I'm surprised you think that I don't know that. New or old, it has reached a proportion that has to be dealt with or it's simply going to increase for future generations to deal with. Sure we were heading out of recession and into what could loosely be called a recovery, but that recovery was a fragile one because of our close ties with Europe. I'm not really to bothered about who took us into Euroland, when or why, what bothers me is that we didn't join the Euro yet somehow, through successive govt policy, we're signed up to bailing the Euro out whenever it faces a crisis - and if we refuse we face a crisis at home too as we'll find trade with Europe severely restricted.

You talk about GDP as though it's the only thing that governs how markets should and do react. It isn't, but it's one factor that illustrates how the economy is doing - it's a yardstick, but not much more. Confidence makes economies grow and at the moment the consumer is being squeezed on essentials like food, fuel and energy and they're reacting by spending less. Siren & I are prime examples of that. I used to drive down south every other weekend to see my daughter but the cost of fuel has rocketed to such an extent that what used to cover two trips and back now only provides enough fuel for one (and a bit). £100 in Sainsbury's used to buy us 6-8 full bags of shopping yet that same amount now only seems to fill 4-5 bags. Our energy bills have risen by 30% over the past two years. I know I'm not alone in this so how can consumer confidence return when faced with such astronomical price rises for essential day to day expenses?

How can our govt develop new policies to tackle the problems we're facing if they can't address the fear factor that most of us are feeling which prevents us from committing to expensive new purchases, moving homes or buying new cars?

The bottom line is if we're not selling what we're importing or manufacturing, GDP cannot possibly rise, can it?

Income - outgoings = profit

But if our outgoings are higher than our income there is no profit and cuts have to be made. It's basic economics. My 13y/o daughter could do these sorts of maths on her head, blindfolded while practicing her clarinet.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *leasureDomeMan
over a year ago

all over the place

"you are talking as if this debt is something new wishy it isnt and at the moment is 2.1% above its average level,it is higher in monetry terms but as gdp has risen so has the cash value.

Labour did not start the worlkd recession even the most ardent tory is now saying its a hollow arguament to suggest they did .

In fact the best figures we have had since the recession are in the first quarter after brown left office proving his methods had begun to swing us into real growth.

The bottom line is if we're not selling what we're importing or manufacturing, GDP cannot possibly rise, can it?

Income - outgoings = profit

So tell me then ,why when we have had this same level of debt with regard to GDP for over 300 years is it left to our generation and this limited life govt to pay it off in one term.

For our future children is just more spin.Tell me any country or company in the world who does not operate on a overdraft ,its required to average out the boom and ressessions.

As i mentioned we had it at 250% of gdp in the early 50s and by the 60s it was back down to 6.9%. So why our generation to pay it off ,why right now ,why not the next ,we have been left with the previous debt by previous govts and generations.

I remember in the 70s ,my old man had a new car took us on holiday twice a year ,owned his house and my mom had her new washing machine etc and decorated every couple of years ,but it was all done on one income ,my dads, and that is the con,it now takes two working.

Maybe its time to start quantative easing with the poor so we have trickle up wealth, they cant sit on any money they get like the banks are, they have to spend it to survive,there you have your instant boost to the economy Dave and Nick ....in fact go one better start building the badly needed new schools you cancelled, in fact let the debt go to 14% of gdp and get the economy rolling again,its basic common sense you chuck hundreds of thousands on the dole and your tax bill goes up and tax receipts down.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"its basic common sense you chuck hundreds of thousands on the dole and your tax bill goes up and tax receipts down. "

Whaaaat???

Employee wage = £20,000

Employee tax = 20%

Income from tax = £4,000

Balance = -£16,000

By laying off govt workers the govt are saving themselves £16,000, for example, not losing £4,000, plus the govt are paying less for workspace, materials, subsidies, etc etc ... it makes sense to cut public sector jobs when the govt coffers can't afford to keep them. And don't forget who is was that created thousands of surplus public sector jobs with final salary pension schemes eh?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *leasureDomeMan
over a year ago

all over the place

"its basic common sense you chuck hundreds of thousands on the dole and your tax bill goes up and tax receipts down.

Whaaaat???

Employee wage = £20,000

Employee tax = 20%

Income from tax = £4,000

Balance = -£16,000

Your equation appears to miss key elements of loss lets look at it again

""Employee wage = £20,000

Employee tax = 20%

Income from tax = £4,000

Balance = -£16,000""

Cost of benefits paid to unemployed workers = incalculable without statistics but enough to help push our national debt up for 2 years running despite the cuts

Add in loss of VAT at 20%

Loss of stamp duty on purchase of houses.

loss of fuel duty on petrol.

loss of car tax.

Cost of providing free prescriptions.

loss of national insurance payment.

loss of council tax.

loss of personal self esteem to people chucked out of there jobs for nothing more than political dogma.

Loss due to providing free school meals for kids with unemployed parents

loss of income for various companies as people cut back to practically no economic activity.

And that is the position we are in now wishy ,a 0.1% growth in a stagnant economy an increasing benefits bill despite attempts to cut it by sticking it up the poor.

And the same old lies about debt along with an increasing debt (despite chucking hundreds of thousands out of work).

The warnings were given, ignored and tbh this govt coalition is looking inept at best, they said "it was an experiment and they did not know the outcome".....as the lethargic economy shows signs of creaking at the seams

isnt it time they dropped the spin ,the current plan and did the sensible thing for us all.

That is why i quite like the Human rights act it helps (in a small way) stop the champagne s from sticking it in too deep.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread