AuthorTopic: Brits want to get rid of Human Rights  (Read 509 times)

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39797
    • View Profile
Brits want to get rid of Human Rights
« on: June 10, 2017, 08:28:02 PM »
The Brits had to go Trumpovetsky one better on dropping out of the climate accord.  They want to now repeal Human Rights laws because "they protect terrorists".  Donalditry will here this on Faux Newz in the morning and say, "Hey! What a GREAT IDEA!".  ::)


Resistance to Human Rights

by Ian Robinson / June 10th, 2017

The Prime Minister has made a pledge that if re-elected, they will take steps to abolish the Human Rights Act. This is allegedly on the basis that the Act is enabling criminals and terrorists to operate freely in our society, and that the Act is preventing any progress in the domestic war on terror.

The Conservatives have a long-standing tradition of openly representing the wealthy, and have been long-time enemies of any progress being made within the concept of ‘fairness and freedom for all.’

Following the scene that played out in Europe from 1933-1945, with all its associated horrors, and the tyranny and abuses inflicted on humankind, the idea of protecting rights in Law made headway in 1948 when a Universal Declaration of Human Rights was made.

This led to the European Convention on Human Rights being conceived two years later.

Britain signed the ECHR in November 1950, and became the first state to endorse the convention the following year.

Since then the successive British governments sought to portray themselves as champions of the convention at an international level, and have committed troops, financial aid and weapons, even waged war and deposed dictators in the name of the convention and often cite human rights abuses in the media to justify their intentions.

Whilst championing the convention at an international level, Britain has been very slow in incorporating those same principles into British Law, anyone claiming Human Rights violations having to take the costly route into the Strasbourg courts to be heard.

After signing the convention in 1950, it took British governments until 1998 to finally acknowledge the Convention into British Law and in 2000 it was finally bound into UK law.

In the 17 years since, there has been much media attention and other campaigns, committed to discrediting the Convention in respect to UK law. Ludicrous claims that the Act has started a compensation culture, given criminals and terrorists freedom to act in their crimes. The list of reasons stated is endless, which, of course, are simply lies, when you actually apply the Act to them in Law.

Written into the Act are what are known as ‘Limitations’ to the act, which can be applied only in pursuance of a legitimate aim, and requires that a definite legal basis applies to the pursuit of that aim.

Any measures in place must be ‘necessary,’ and ‘proportionate’ to that aim.

Legitimate aims that are acceptable to the Convention and the Act are:

    Interests of National security.
    Interests of public safety.
    The prevention of disorder and crime.
    Protection of the health, rights and freedoms of others.

Any aims must also be shown to be necessary in a democratic society, and be the LEAST intrusive way of achieving the aim.

Therefore, is it an infringement of a person’s human rights if they find themselves arrested and detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act after involving themselves with terrorist organisations?

The Prevention of Terrorism Act gives HM government all the powers they need to tackle domestic terrorism, and the Human Rights Act does nothing to prevent them from acting.

It is clear to see that in applying the Act to the problems cited by Theresa May in the wake of recent domestic incidents in the UK that the war on terror is not under threat due to the Act being in place.

And it does not place limitations on the authorities’ abilities to crack down on domestic terrorism.

The pursuit of individuals or groups, suspected of committing acts which threaten the safety of others or that threaten national security, are permitted and sanctioned by the Act.

Article 2 states the Right to Life, and prohibits unlawful killing so it is clear to see that the claims made by the Prime Minister that they cannot act are untrue.

The Human Rights Act protects the weak and vulnerable, the elderly and the infirm, gives you security in the workplace, and in all manner of ways in everyday life.

The abolition of the Act and the failure to protect the rights of individual citizens who play no part in domestic terrorism. Can it be said to be an abuse of individuals’ rights in itself?

Ian Robinson is a spiritual writer who has studied extensively in the fields of politics and religion. Read other articles by Ian.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39797
    • View Profile
The Ideology of Bonfires
« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2017, 01:37:29 AM »
June 19, 2017
The Ideology of Bonfires

by Jeff Berg

The number of those reported killed in the Grenfell Tower fire in London’s West End is rising. The reporting I’ve seen started the count at six, soon rose to twelve, then seventeen, and now stands at fifty-eight. There are some on social media claiming the number may be as much as ten times higher. This question at least will be answered sooner rather than later. What is also true is that a fight over numbers at this point distracts from more pressing facts. I.e. This loss of life was preventable and there is a direct link from the Conservative Party’s guiding ideology to this tragedy. The Labour Party tabled a bill less than a year ago to upgrade the safety of residences like Grenfell Tower. The Conservatives with their majority voted against it and so the bill died.

Think on this. Politicians voting openly against the safety of those they represent. How could they justify it? How could this not be political poison?How could the media essentially ignore such blatant disrespect by elected representatives of their constituents safety? The answer is straightforward. The Conservative Party campaigned on killing regulations. They bragged openly about eliminating two regulations for every one brought in. The core of their ideology was the ever exalted goal of “getting government off the back of business.” In the specific case of this Labour Party bill the Conservative majority rejected it on the claim of avoiding “unnecessary regulations”

The direct result of this lack of regulation for Grenfell Tower residents was the use of incendiary cladding instead of fire retardant cladding, and no requirement for a sprinkler system. As to the media the Conservative’s killing of Labour’s tenant safety bill was simply business as usual, dog bites man, expected behavior, one measure among too many to highlight. Google ‘bonfire of regulations’ and you will discover that like minded political behavior is not in short supply. As with many political regressions today America is leading the charge for this one. As is also not  uncommon America once led by example having suffered its own versions of Grenfell in what were called the ‘bad old days’ before this redux.

There will be time to determine precisely how many died in the Grenfell Tower fire. The exact number does matter because every human life counts. For now what is most urgent is doing everything required to help those who survived to grieve and recover. On that score the Conservative’s handling of this crisis so far resembles nothing so much as it resembles an introduction – “Gasoline meet fire”. British comic Jonathan Pie sums up the tragedy and the Conservative’s conduct as papering over poverty with flammable cladding.

What should happen now is the passing of a tenant safety bill like the one that Labour tabled a year ago. Will it? What matters is that government regulations are enforced. Will they be? If this means hiring more enforcement officers, and it does, so be it. If there is anything at all that government is there for it is to ensure that the pursuit of profit does not lead our citizens to being burned on a bonfire of deregulation.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39797
    • View Profile
Grenfell Tower: A Tory Wicker Man ?
« Reply #2 on: June 20, 2017, 12:43:49 AM »

Grenfell Tower: A Tory Wicker Man ?
June 15, 2017 By 21wire 22 Comments

1 Grenfell TowerIMAGE: Grenfell Tower in West London, pictured along side the Wicker Man.

21st Century Wire

The week saw one of the worst urban disasters in recent history, as runaway fires consumed a low-income high-rise council estate in the London borough of Kensington and Chelsea. So far, police have confirmed 17 dead and have indicated that they expect to find many more fatalities.

As the old adage goes, there are no natural disasters, only human ones.

But this horrific scene in west London symbolises much more than simple negligence. The image of a Wicker Man comes to mind.

Were low-income residents sacrificed at the altar of austerity, greed and corporate privatisation?

As North Kensington’s towering inferno continues to smoulder into the early morning, circumstantial evidence is beginning to emerge showing how Conservative MPs  sidelined legislation that would have required higher safety standards. According to reports, a group of Tory MPs have consistently voted against tenants’ rights including voting down Labour’s amendment to the recent Housing and Planning Bill which would have required landlords to make their homes “fit for habitation.” Perhaps not surprisingly, the 72 Tory MPs who killed the legislation also just happened to be commercial landlords themselves.

To add insult to injury, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson during his tenure as  Mayor of London instituted cuts that have stripped London of 7,000 of its firefighters in the last five years, with numerous Fire Station closures and other cuts to frontline emergency services.

So how did Grenfell Tower turn into a death trap for so many ? The organisation responsible for maintenance and safety at the social housing block is the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO). But the organisation’s name is deceptive – far from being a tenant-run company, the ‘TMO’ is actually a private company – an aloof ivory tower that sits far above the actual residents, and who ‘manage’ 10,000 properties… with handsome salaries and fees for selected executives and contractors. Although Grenfell Tower is owned by the Borough Council of Kensington and Chelsea, the management of the tower block is subcontracted out to the TMO.

Critics of the public-private partnership, or PPP, management hand-off claim that the quasi-privatised TMO arrangement is rife with corruption, including sweetheart deals to contractors. It also enables connected board members to fleece poor residents while taking home enormous sums of money for doing little if anything for it. Last year, the KCTMO was paid £11million ($14 million) in taxpayer money to manage Grenfell Tower. According to the Mail Online, four senior members of TMO took £650,000 between them last year. And that’s not all:

“There are also claims that there was no central sprinkler system – or it was also not working properly during the fire. Others have claimed that the new cladding encasing the block added during last year’s £10million refurbishment by Rydon Construction caught alight ‘like a matchstick’.” This [petroleum-based, flammable plastic] exterior cladding was apparently added to the building to improve the view and cosmetic appearance of the tower when seen from a new development or private luxury flats in the locality.

Apparently, this was all part of a “regeneration project” which was said to be completed last year on only one building: Grenfell Tower.

Watch the full-length live feed of the fire here:

<a href="" target="_blank" class="new_win"></a>
It gets worse. According resident advocacy blog Bella Caledonia:

“It’s emerged that the local Council – the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea – actually threatened a local blogger and action group with legal action for calling to attention the state of the building. We’re told also that “Theresa May’s chief of staff ‘sat on’ report warning high-rise blocks like Grenfell Tower were vulnerable to fire.”

Resident Darren Cullen said on Twitter: “Any attempt to depoliticise an event like this is a political act in itself.”

Despite numerous warnings by the residents of Grenfell Tower, local action groups believe that the TMO did not take any significant action to rectify fundamental health and safety flaws.

Reporter Holly Baxter of the London Independent detailed how a series of prophetic warnings posted by the residents’ advocacy group were routinely ignored:

“The Grenfell Action Group residents’ association had consistently warned about the possibility of such a tragedy; this morning, they updated their website with a post which reads: “Regular readers of this blog will know that we have posted numerous warnings in recent years about the very poor fire safety standards at Grenfell Tower and elsewhere in RBKC [the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea]. ALL OUR WARNINGS FELL ON DEAF EARS and we predicted that a catastrophe like this was inevitable and just a matter of time.”

“Links to their earlier posts prove it: in 2013 they warned that shutting down the block’s car park would mean just one narrow, restricted road for emergency vehicle access, something which eyewitnesses reported slowed down the fire engine response this morning; the same year, they wrote a long post about continuous electrical surges which had been causing fire hazards in the building (“decisive action was only taken yesterday after highly distressed residents descended en masse on the estate office to demand help and assistance. They had woken to find smoke issuing from various electrical appliances in their homes, including the light fixtures, and descended in panic to the estate office to demand help”) ; and in November 2016, their frustration about what they called inadequate fire escapes culminated in a frighteningly prescient post titled Playing With Fire: “The Grenfell Action Group firmly believe that only a catastrophic event will expose the ineptitude and incompetence of our landlord, the KCTMO, and bring to an end the dangerous living conditions and neglect of health and safety legislation that they inflict upon their tenants and leaseholders… It is our conviction that a serious fire in a tower block… is the most likely reason those who wield power at the KCTMO will be found out and brought to justice”.

But the Tories can’t take all the credit. It’s been said by some party grandees (not to mention Margret Thatcher herself) that the Thatcher Era’s greatest achievement was New Labour and Tony Blair – both of whom helped to push Thatcher’s mass-privatisation agenda over the goal line. Blair’s corporatist trojan horse was camouflaged under the heading of a ‘New Deal for Communities,’ along with the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit nested within the Department for Communities and Local Government and fueled by millions of pounds in “regeneration grants” from the EU – supposedly designed to lift-up some of the England’s most deprived neighbourhoods, which instead paved the way for a bold social engineering project which led to the mass-gentrification of low income areas across the UK, where massive profits were booked on the back of privatising council properties, taking advantage of an over-inflated housing market. It was during this period that PPP takeovers like the TMO took hold of large sectors of Britain’s social housing.

See more TMO scandals at Not TMO, and this open letter to the Hackney TMO here.

21WIRE staff report. Special thanks to contributors Jason Smith, Patrick Henningsen and Basil Valentine.

READ MORE GRENFELL TOWER NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Grenfell Files
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Palloy2

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 6097
    • View Profile
    • Palloy's Blog
Re: Brits want to get rid of Human Rights
« Reply #3 on: June 20, 2017, 03:47:22 PM »
Who is responsible? - they have done very at well keeping KCTMO's name out of the limelight, who should have specified what materials were to be used, the contractors, (still not known), who actually ordered the materials and affixed them, and the Kensington Borough Council (who should have checked that appropriate materials were used during the upgrade, and the head of the Fire Brigade, who should have checked all the above checks had happened.
Now the finger-pointing will begin, and the enquiry will drag on, packed with lawyers insisting their clients weren't responsible.

Incidently the Human Rights Act was supported by the arch-conservative Churchill after he was totally thrown out of office by a very left-wing Labour Party that brought in the National Health Service, and the nationalisation of the coal mines, railways, telephone system, etc.  The intention was to use Human Rights as a hammer to bash Labour over the head with - nothing to do with Human Rights, of course, given Churchill's propensity to fire-bomb Dresden and Tokyo, and saturation bomb German cites.
"The State is a body of armed men."


Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
Last post August 01, 2014, 09:39:27 AM
by knarf
0 Replies
Last post October 09, 2017, 01:35:50 PM
by azozeo
0 Replies
Last post December 30, 2017, 05:18:54 AM
by RE