Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by G8D)
    Considerably worse?! They don't currenty get the vote even under ECHR and the British public IIRC support this.
    Well, apparently there is currently a "dispute" between the Court and the UK regarding prisoners' right to vote. The Tories also disagree with the decision that prisoners have the right to artificial insemination with their partners. They also think life sentences should always be for life - something that the ECHR disputes.


    (Original post by The two eds)
    I am so happy that I get to sit back and watch "people" like you suffer welfare cuts, bedroom tax, tuition fees, less taxes on the rich, loss of your rights and more zero hour contracts. It will be satisfying and I will enjoy every second of it for the next 5 years
    Are you a troll or what?


    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    What I don't like is the ability of employers to hire agency staff. It significantly limits the ability of strikes to achieve a result.

    FWIW I do support secret balloting, but I think scabs should face legal, not merely social repercussions.
    That's not very fair. We do live in a democracy, you know.

    (Original post by DanB1991)
    Conservatives won? Well we'll have no rights, every single working class person will be killed over the next 5 years, children will have their clothes stolen off their backs and the NHS will be a smouldering crater of radioactive dust....

    Come on people.... could people actually use common sense for once and stop getting involved in the facebookesque hysteria.
    Well, that's not too far from the truth. 60 people have already died as a result of welfare reform; certainly the number will increase in the next five years.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StarvingAutist)
    Well, that's not too far from the truth. 60 people have already died as a result of welfare reform; certainly the number will increase in the next five years.
    People also died as a result of labours policies.....

    Remember all those hospital scandals under labour? People dying as a result of politicians decisions is a reality of the world sadly. Doesn't make it acceptable, but it happens. Whenever something is reduced generally someone, somewhere will die as a result, quite possibly in an indirect manner.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanB1991)
    People also died as a result of labours policies.....

    Remember all those hospital scandals under labour? People dying as a result of politicians decisions is a reality of the world sadly. Doesn't make it acceptable, but it happens. Whenever something is reduced generally someone, somewhere will die as a result, quite possibly in an indirect manner.
    Quite; cuts to public services are never in the interests of the people who use them. I doubt anyone would die from repealing the 50p tax cut.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StarvingAutist)
    I wonder what they'll be. The right to make a profit will probably come into existence.
    Are you saying it shouldn't be a human right to better your position? Socialists, not even once.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Feels)
    Are you saying it shouldn't be a human right to better your position? Socialists, not even once.
    A right to profit implies that the workers will lose rights; workers' rights inhibit a company's ability to make the most profit it can. The less rights workers have, the more profits a company makes - zero-hours contracts being a fine example of this principle.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StarvingAutist)
    Quite; cuts to public services are never in the interests of the people who use them. I doubt anyone would die from repealing the 50p tax cut.
    Well that threw a spanner in the works....

    Even then I'm sure I could figure out an extremely indirect route that "could" of killed someone More tax funds, resulting in money being reassigned to round a higher number up, resulting slightly less spending in a different area?

    Meh i'm trying too hard xD
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanB1991)
    Well that threw a spanner in the works....

    Even then I'm sure I could figure out an extremely indirect route that "could" of killed someone More tax funds, resulting in money being reassigned to round a higher number up, resulting slightly less spending in a different area?

    Meh i'm trying too hard xD
    Yeah, come back to me once you've figured that out
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StarvingAutist)
    A right to profit implies that the workers will lose rights; workers' rights inhibit a company's ability to make the most profit it can. The less rights workers have, the more profits a company makes - zero-hours contracts being a fine example of this principle.
    Don't work then.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Feels)
    Don't work then.
    What, and starve? It's not an option. That does not make exploitation okay.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StarvingAutist)
    What, and starve? It's not an option. That does not make exploitation okay.
    You can work somewhere else, start your own business, go live in the forest or another country, go on welfare, go beg on the streets, eat from a dustbin. Nobody is required to feed you, you have to work for it yourself, sorry old chap.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StarvingAutist)
    ****.
    Is a shame they don't hold the same standards when the public elect an actual government.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Dictator)
    The right to profit has always existed.
    No it really hasn't. If you were a serf tied to a lord's land you had no where else to go and everything you produced whilst toiling away was owned by the lord.

    The rise of large scale capitalism is what overthrew the above system.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Feels)
    You can work somewhere else, start your own business, go live in the forest or another country, go on welfare, go beg on the streets, eat from a dustbin. Nobody is required to feed you, you have to work for it yourself, sorry old chap.
    Work somewhere else?

    A lot of the time, there's no choice. Some people simply don't have time to look for a different job; an interview might mean not turning up to their current job.

    Start your own business?

    Most people don't have any business ideas. A lot of them wouldn't be comfortable borrowing the money they'd need to start off. They certainly wouldn't have the money in their bank account.

    Live in the forest?

    Unfortunately, legal action would be taken against them. And no doubt you'd complain that they weren't paying tax and were a lazy scrounger etc. Not to mention they would still have to be able to buy food and drink - what do you want them to do, steal everything they need?

    Emigrate?

    It might be too expensive to go abroad. They might have children in school or family they don't want to leave.

    Go on welfare?

    The support just isn't there. If you claim JSA, you have to look for jobs, so you would just end up getting stuck in another **** job.

    Beg on the streets?

    Some would find this humiliating. It can get cold outside when you're not moving about. You might even get beaten up.

    Eat from a dustbin?

    People do this; supermarkets waste a lot of food. However, most people would not be comfortable with this as a way of life - it's a last resort.


    Look, your total lack of empathy and understanding is not my problem, it's yours.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Is a shame they don't hold the same standards when the public elect an actual government.
    Yes, funny that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StarvingAutist)
    Work somewhere else?

    A lot of the time, there's no choice. Some people simply don't have time to look for a different job; an interview might mean not turning up to their current job.

    Start your own business?

    Most people don't have any business ideas. A lot of them wouldn't be comfortable borrowing the money they'd need to start off. They certainly wouldn't have the money in their bank account.

    Live in the forest?

    Unfortunately, legal action would be taken against them. And no doubt you'd complain that they weren't paying tax and were a lazy scrounger etc. Not to mention they would still have to be able to buy food and drink - what do you want them to do, steal everything they need?

    Emigrate?

    It might be too expensive to go abroad. They might have children in school or family they don't want to leave.

    Go on welfare?

    The support just isn't there. If you claim JSA, you have to look for jobs, so you would just end up getting stuck in another **** job.

    Beg on the streets?

    Some would find this humiliating. It can get cold outside when you're not moving about. You might even get beaten up.

    Eat from a dustbin?

    People do this; supermarkets waste a lot of food. However, most people would not be comfortable with this as a way of life - it's a last resort.


    Look, your total lack of empathy and understanding is not my problem, it's yours.
    Life isn't nice, get over it
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Feels)
    Life isn't nice, get over it
    It could easily be nice. People are generally nice to each other, or at least they are civil. Most people want a society where being nice is quotidian. I doubt anyone wants a society where no-one interacts with others; humans are usually instinctively social.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    An "Early" referendum as he said.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StarvingAutist)
    Given that the Tories want to scrap the Human Rights Act and that we may no longer be under the ECHR in two years, what rights will we have? Is this not a terrifying prospect?
    Nobody has the moral authority to grant or deny rights to anybody else. Rights are inherent, and it's ultimately your responsibility to assert them and defend them, with force if neccessary. If you aren't willing to do that, if you would rather go and beg the government to do it for you, then you will never truly have any rights, you will just have a few state approved privileges, which can be taken away at a moments notice.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    So why bother to repeal the legislation then? Either it's changing something, in which case what, or it's window dressing, in which case why are they holding voters in contempt?

    Straight answer please.
    The HRA means every statute passed has to try and conform with the rights listed in the HRA. It also means one can bring a claim in a court of law on the basis of that breach.

    Without the HRA parliament would no longer have to ensure legisation conforms with the ECHR, and one could no longer bring a claim on the basis of a breach of HRA. The claim would have to be based on common law principles on human rights as established by jurisprudence.

    It's practical effect would be that parliament would no longer be restrained by the ECHR.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Internet)
    How would a "British bill of rights" be different to the European one? Not trying to be provocative. Genuinely not informed in this area.
    We don't know yet, that's for the conservatives to decide. But it would probably put already established common law rights like freedom of speech on statutory footing, but be worded in such a way that parliament would never again find itself in a position like the Abu Qatada extradition case.
 
 
 

1,082

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.