Non-motoring > Human Rights? Miscellaneous
Thread Author: Pat Replies: 9
View Threaded 

New Tue 8 Nov 16 09:10 
 Human Rights? - Pat
dpac.uk.net/2016/11/the-united-nations-report-into-the-uk-government-maltreatment-of-disabled-people-has-been-published/

Not a very good reference for the previous six years in power for this government.

I wonder how many of the recommendations at the bottom of the report will be addressed?

Pat
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Tue 8 Nov 16 11:45 
 Human Rights? - NortonES2
None. SWMBO repudiates existing human rights legislation.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Tue 8 Nov 16 14:30 
 Human Rights? - Bromptonaut

>> I wonder how many of the recommendations at the bottom of the report will be
>> addressed?

We don't want foreigners telling us what to do do we?

Govt reaction is to patronizingly and offensively dismiss the UN report as patronising and offensive:

www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/08/damian-green-dismisses-offensive-un-report-on-uk-disability-rights
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Tue 8 Nov 16 15:20 
 Human Rights? - Manatee
"The government said it spent about £50bn a year to support sick and disabled people – a bigger proportion of GDP than countries including Canada, France and the US."

Are the sick and disabled treated even worse in these countries? Or have their governments found a better way of doing things?

There have undoubtedly been some - many - very hard and unfair cases, many caused I have no doubt through rank incompetence of contractors and those who managed their activities. The 'system' has made itself the enemy of a lot of decent people, a couple of them known to me.

I don't know the answer; but it isn't in codified procedures and algorithms. The natural tendency is for any welfare system, even harsh ones. to gather increasing and unsustainable deadweight cost. In the past trying to solve this this gave us workhouses, and the concept of the deserving vs. the undeserving poor - an unworkable idea that the post-2010 changes seem designed to bring back.

Perhaps the UN would like to propose the solutions.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Tue 8 Nov 16 15:45 
 Human Rights? - Pat
>>
We don't want foreigners telling us what to do do we? <<

Would you like to explain that Bromp to avoid any misunderstanding please?

Pat
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Tue 8 Nov 16 19:58 
 Human Rights? - Bromptonaut
>> Would you like to explain that Bromp to avoid any misunderstanding please?

Much of the debate about the EU (and ECHR) has been framed in terms of us being 'dictated' to by foreign courts or tribunals. As might be expected HMG's response to the UN is in same vein.

I was surprised that you, someone who's postings here lead me to think you abhor such foreign oversight, welcomed oversight by the UN.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Wed 9 Nov 16 03:42 
 Human Rights? - Pat
>> someone who's postings here lead me to think you abhor such foreign oversight,<<

Now that is where you have gone entirely wrong.

I find it is always better to ask for clarification if I don't understand others remarks sooner than make assumptions.

Perhaps you.......?

I assumed with your work for the CAB you would have been interested in this outcome and have brought it to our attention.

Does that only happen if it's an outcome you approve of?

Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Wed 9 Nov 16 at 03:44
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Wed 9 Nov 16 07:24 
 Human Rights? - Bromptonaut
Pat,

I've not had time to read the UN report but I am interested and doubt there's a word in it I disagree with. Dealt with somebody yesterday, an ordinary single Mum, who's lost over £100/week because of the new benefit cap. The only person living high on the hog from her 'handouts' was the landlord of her rented house. She wasn't sick or disabled but it wouldn't necessarily have made any difference if she was.

Not seen any comment from CA central on UN report but I expect it will be in today's bulletin.

My initial post yesterday (14:30) was about general political/media response - see Minister Damian Green's statement. It wasn't aimed at you personally.

When asked to clarify I expressed surprise, given your previous postings, that you appeared to welcome this particular international intervention. Observation not dig.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 9 Nov 16 at 07:28
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Wed 9 Nov 16 08:05 
 Human Rights? - Pat
Thanks for sorting that out Bromp.

As you know, I face the same problems with charity claims for help and I'm a little concerned that in the media this report seems to be being kept very low key.

Regardless of our respective political beliefs I'm sure we both agree that many of the claims in the report are very true and need addressing urgently.

Pat
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Wed 9 Nov 16 08:31 
 Human Rights? - BrianByPass
>> there's a word in it I disagree with. Dealt with somebody yesterday, an ordinary single
>> Mum, who's lost over £100/week because of the new benefit cap. The only person living
>> high on the hog from her 'handouts' was the landlord of her rented house.
>>

£100 a week = £5200pa

It seems you are implying that (if the benefits cap you are referring to is the £20,000 cap) that £20000 of taxpayer money is still going straight to a landlord, whereas previously it was £25200 of taxpayer money going to the landlord.

p.s. what do you man by "an ordinary" single Mum?
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Wed 9 Nov 16 at 08:31
Reply to this message | Report message
       
Latest Forum Posts