h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

but I can castrate, welare standards and all, don't know why I felt the need to mention that particulary

so where we, mulled

never would I have voted to join the Euro,

human rights, death penalty

I have to go offline now - (w*rk) so we'll have to chat tomorrow.

and I'll be sober

sorry that I just lurched over

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073394/Cutting-dole-fail-jobs-goes-human-rights.html

Good old Mail

The Daily Mail and this time of the morning nuff to make anyone feel a tad queasy I braved it, the mail, not the , I couldn't bring myself to stop and read the comments though


Discussing the threat to cut the dole of the workshy, the report said: ‘We believe there is a risk that the conditionality and sanction provisions in the Bill might in some circumstances lead to destitution, such as would amount to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights, if the individual concerned was genuinely incapable of work.’

However, it added: ‘We do not consider that making benefits conditional on compliance with work-related requirements is in breach of the prohibition on servitude and forced labour in Article 4 of the ECHR.’

I'm not sure what work-related requirements they are talking about, do you know? I've got time to google later

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/12/westminster-council-means-test-housing

this sort of thing?

What I was saying is that this is an area where I cannot conceive that someone would consider any human rights are being breached.

I believe we should help those unable to care for themselves, but by that I mean the disabled, the elderly, and the unfortunate, not the addicted, the criminal, and the feckless. (Great word)

wonders if she is unfortunate, or feckless,

'unfortunately feckless' there is Taffs absence, feck, fecking, ARSE, you feckers. Are you a Dick, is a great conversation starter,

I think I can conceive of scenerios where sanctioning somebody's benefits *in practise* will breach their human rights, or the rights of others, destitution is a word that doesn't sit well with me. That will only be tested when it is tested, hopefully not by me

It is good precautionary practise to consider all advice before introducing any welfare reforms, so far on first reading, it will only come down to an individual humans rights, where does that lead

That is the danger both ways, you can only legislate for the majority, there will always be 'exceptions.' I don't think that you can be 'fair' at government level. You have to allow for common decency and common sense. The HRA does neither of these, and produces effects contrary to its intent.

I support its intent, I abhor it application.

not ignoring this,

'I don't think that you can be 'fair' at government level. You have to allow for common decency and common sense' is something that I would really like to respond too but I can't just off the top of the head, writing is not a strong point

and a bacon butty, in the meantime?

I'll go for