Every Laugh Is The Energy

Behind_The_Sofa_2

Savvybuyer wrote: »

Just a think - that this thread (the bits I've caught and I've not caught up so could have missed it) seems to be biased against the Conservatives, in the sense that no-one who is Conservative appears to have wanted to come onto here and defend the Conservative's approach. Come on - are you really really shy Tories?

Or is instead that we are just sensible people and are all unanimous about what the Conservative's plan means?

I wa reading yesterday about how the bedroom tax (sorry, "spare room subsidy") is in breach of the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of Child. The UK is currently in breach of a UN Convention - if that continues, there will be utterly damning criticism from the UN next year when they investigate (which they do every few years).

Iain Duncan Smith dismissed our own Children's Commissioner's report as being based on "anecdotal evidence", despite the DWP itself relying on anecdotal evidence in its presentations of statistics - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29733582 - and being criticised by the UK Statistics Authority.

Oops - I forgot - he's a politician and therefore does not have to substantiate anything he claims or rely on anything other than rhetoric, anecdote and his own view. The thing is though how the mainstream media are totally ineffective and do not hold anyone to account, the same as the political system.

Thank you.

IDS is a despicable excuse for a human being. Laughing about food bank increases and the rise in people using them. Avoiding questions about them by ducking out a side door.

Scotland invited someone from the U.N to come and see if the Bedroom Tax was illegal or not. She ruled it was it was. IDS told her to get lost. Unfortunately this particular person didn't have any specific power to force the U.K. to reverse it. Lets hope with them looking in to it further next year that then can send it to a higher level in the U.N. that does have the power.

Savvybuyer

fairclaire wrote: »

oh dear......[2] the human rights act is a European policy. not a British one. We were forced to adopt it as part of European policy.
We have more human rights in this country than most of the globe.

it's a cop out to fall back on human rights. We do have them. we just don't appreciate it

only people who live as freely as we do could complain about human rights.

[1] if you truly had youre 'human rights' removed you'd know about it! We are very lucky and we should never forget it

[1] Interesting point - yes there are countries that flagrantly breach human rights, but it's all a matter of degree. Actually, it would not be "interesting" at all, if you are being subject to torture.

[2] I thought the European Convention was partially drafted by ourselves in 1953 - we, as the British, helped draft the entire Convention in the first place and were part of that as part of the Council of Europe. We are members of the organisations, they are not something that overrules us. The requirement for EU members to respect and abide by the European Convention came in later. Didn't John Major, a Conservative, sign us up to that as part of Maastricht?:think: The Human Rights Act is a British Act of Parliament. It is (or now was) therefore a British policy, not a European one. The British policy now is to repeal it. That's neither required nor otherwise by European Union law.

Our Parliament can repeal it, as with any British law. We are then straight back to the problems that arose with the UK being found in breach of the Convention by the Human Rights court, probably more often than most other members because it didn't provide a domestic law. Only in future we'll have a British Bill of Rights on top, operating in tandem and not always consistently with it.

Savvybuyer

itch_for_a_glitch wrote: »

Bit late really.

Ah well, never mind.

No - in theory of course we are all supposed to read these things beforehand but very few people ever do. Not actually too late at all - very timely, in my view, to read the Conservative manifesto now as that is the manifesto that is now relevant whereas all the others now are not.:) I just wanted now to prepare myself for what might be, not that it tells me.

fairclaire

Savvybuyer wrote: »

[1] Interesting point - yes there are countries that flagrantly breach human rights, but it's all a matter of degree. Actually, it would not be "interesting" at all, if you are being subject to torture.

[2] I thought the European Convention was partially drafted by ourselves in 1953 - we, as the British, helped draft the entire Convention in the first place and were part of that as part of the Council of Europe. We are members of the organisations, they are not something that overrules us. The requirement for EU members to respect and abide by the European Convention came in later. Didn't John Major, a Conservative, sign us up to that as part of Maastricht?:think: The Human Rights Act is a British Act of Parliament. It is (or now was) therefore a British policy, not a European one. The British policy now is to repeal it.

Our Parliament can repeal it, as with any British law. We are then straight back to the problems that arose with the UK being found in breach of the Convention by the Human Rights court, probably more often than most other members because it didn't provide a domestic law. Only in future we'll have a British Bill of Rights on top, operating in tandem and not always consistently with it.

The human rights contained within British law are based on the articles contained within European law. We have a human rights act....but we never wrote it. We relied on European law for that

There are no cases that I know of that rely on British human rights acts?

Happy to be proved wrong

Behind_The_Sofa_2

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/watch-iain-duncan-smith-laugh-4829195

http://labourlist.org/2014/11/pmqs-verdict-the-appalling-laughter-of-iain-duncan-smith/

http://iainduncansmith.com

https://imincorrigible.wordpress.com/2013/12/29/iain-duncan-smith-and-esther-mcvey-sneer-laugh-and-then-vanish-as-commons-debates-why-britains-desperate-poor-are-forced-to-use-foodbanks/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iain-duncan-smith-leaves-commons-debate-on-food-banks-early-9013917.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iain-duncan-smith-compares-being-on-benefits-to-slavery-and-suggests-he-is-acting-in-tradition-of-abolitionist-9080982.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iain-duncan-smith-accuses-food-bank-charity-the-trussell-trust-of-scaremongering-9021150.html

Savvybuyer

They've promised to put a benefits cap of £23,000 as well (reducing it from the current £26,000). That's in order that no household can get more on benefits that it would if they worked - the idea, in their rhetoric, being always to make work pay. However, the cap excludes people on, for example, personal independence payment. So, if you get that, the cap on benefits is meaningless.

It's all meaningless, worthless and pointless. Does anyone actually know any household claiming that huge sum in benefits anyway? Maybe I am completely out of touch and perhaps there are loads. However, I know none - it seems to be political rhetoric again, directed at the media, rather than anything of substance. I didn't watch anything about the Benefits Street - it seems to me to be more hype than actual illumination.

It's like the "cutting down on waste and bureaucracy" - every government says it and yet they continue to spend as much. Perhaps, in an attempt to get the thread back on track again, they should take a leaf out of this site and learn how to save money!

Behind_The_Sofa_2

Convenient how they want to do away with the Human Rights Act as they appoint Gove to Justice Secretary.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/our-new-justice-secretary-michael-gove-wanted-to-bring-back-hanging-10239681.html

zippydooda

Savvybuyer wrote: »

No - in theory of course we are all supposed to read these things beforehand but very few people ever do. Not actually too late at all - very timely, in my view, to read the Conservative manifesto now as that is the manifesto that is now relevant whereas all the others now are not.:) I just wanted now to prepare myself for what might be, not that it tells me.

what preparations you going to do then? I expect absolutely nothing, that will make any difference to you or anyone else.

itch_for_a_glitch

Savvybuyer wrote: »

No - in theory of course we are all supposed to read these things beforehand but very few people ever do. Not actually too late at all - very timely, in my view, to read the Conservative manifesto now as that is the manifesto that is now relevant whereas all the others now are not.:) I just wanted now to prepare myself for what might be, not that it tells me.

lol

I always read the instructions after I've bodged the job.

Savvybuyer

I would have thought that there was nothing more important to readers of a money-saving site than effects and implications on tax and benefits.

Alright, I thought there might be a new thread soon, but there's still nearly 400 posts to go (so maybe a lot more discussion yet:rotfl:). In any event, I can still come back later on, this afternoon and evening, and join you all again!

Goodnight:wave:.