Visit the historic Lancashire Textile Project with over 500 photos and 190 taped interviews|2|0
Go to Page
  First Page  Previous Page    29  30  31  [32]  33  34   Next Page  Last Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart


36804 Posts
Posted -  28/04/2011  :  07:37
Political comment is a high risk activity on the site these days so I thought I'd try again to give those who are interested in politics a safe haven!


Stanley Challenger Graham




Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk
Replies
Author
Go to Page
  First Page  Previous Page    29  30  31  [32]  33  34   Next Page  Last Page
 
Tardis
Regular Member


453 Posts
Posted - 06/10/2011 : 12:16
The thing from the growth figure revisions, was that the growth after the crash was said to be much deeper than first reported, now that collated figures are in for tax receipts etc

It must be remembered that this growth has not come back as in normal recessions. The graph may have stalled, but considering the government is saying money is cheap, the banks are saying money is expensive, people are thinking they have to retrench, and manufacturing is wondering how it can grow sufficiently to satisfy demand or go for more contracts, on top of which the Euro politicians are not accepting the "markets" that they are in hock to, is it any surprise that there is a stalemate?


Go to Top of Page
Bruff
Regular Member


479 Posts
Posted - 06/10/2011 : 13:32
Mr Cameron managed to play to the gallery and get in the predictable dig at '''elf and safety gorn mad!''  Something to do with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations and marker pens.  I'm assuming he's not trying to illustrate the absurdity of these regulations which are at least an attempt under criminal law to require employers not to poison their employees.  After all, about 10,000 folk a year die due occupational cancers and other lung diseases (which doesn't include the mesothelioma deaths due to past asbestos exposure, about 2500).  I think as usual there's a conflation of criminal law duties with liability under civil law, which is what many, but by no means all, of the 'elf and safety stories amount to )not that any amount of clarification will get this through to folk).  Still, at least this is a confusion and there's always hope for the confused; but last time he had a go at 'elf 'n' etc, he repeated a myth - teachers not being allowed to put plasters on pupils - and noted a school had banned conkers (nothing to do with health and safety law, but the 'seed' is planted).  It's also worth noting that what he said on an EU Directive and diabetic drivers has been errrm 'clarified' is the polite term, by Diabetes UK.

 
As for Ms May's cat, I give up.  Here are your Human Rights as enshrined in the ECHR:
The right to life; freedom from torture and degrading treatment; freedom from slavery and forced labour; the right to liberty; the right to a fair trial; the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it; the right to respect for private and family life; freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs; freedom of expression; freedom of assembly and association; the right to marry and to start a family; the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms; the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property; the right to an education; the right to participate in free elections; the right not to be subjected to the death penalty.
Last one'll upset a lot of folk in this country but the others well, if we had some British Bill of Rights I'd struggle to see which would be dropped.  After all, we British are as 'human' as everyone else I assume.  Maybe not.  You see, we aren't talking about malign European plots here; we're talking about judicial interpretations and eventual judgements.  I don't see how ripping the HRA up would change this.

 
Richard Broughton 



Go to Top of Page
thomo
Barlick Born Old Salt


2021 Posts
Posted - 06/10/2011 : 13:59
All manner of acts have a place in life, its how they are applied that makes the difference, and there is no getting away from the fact that some are wide open to abuse and/or misinterpretation, and often by those whe seek personal gain.


thomo Go to Top of Page
Callunna
Revolving Grey Blob


3044 Posts
Posted - 06/10/2011 : 15:19


quote:
Bruff wrote:
  Here are your Human Rights as enshrined in the ECHR:
 

Do you know what? I don't think I've ever seen my human rights set out in writing. Thanks for this, Richard.  

I think "human rights" could be summed up as "Do as you would be done by" i.e. have respect for others and others will respect you, but obviously it isn't that simplistic these days.Go to Top of Page
thomo
Barlick Born Old Salt


2021 Posts
Posted - 06/10/2011 : 17:13
Add to that, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" which is fine when abroad, and should work in reverse, but frequently does not!


thomo Go to Top of Page
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart


36804 Posts
Posted - 07/10/2011 : 05:15
Belle, the cry of the politician down the ages. "Don't worry your little heads, we know what's good for you." I always wonder if we'd employ a plumber with a similar track record. The policy makers live in a parallel universe and in large part ignore back benchers who know what's happening on the ground.

Richard, I agree about the current argument about Human Rights. It seems to me that the problem is that some people want to complicate the legislation by adopting the '1984' dictum, 'Some animals are more equal than others'. Leave the basic statement alone and deal with any anomalies in the normal way, by sensible legislation enforced by the courts and Paliament. Problem is it then becomes complicated and perhaps this is the natural consequence of justice, sometimes it is blind and misses the target. If we start to modify the basic rights we are on dangerous ground. Far better to allow the anomalies and regard them as a price for progress.

I have no sympathy for Cameron or the ConDem government, but we have to recognise that they are in a bind. Their big problem is that the global crisis in confidence has overtaken their policies which were too draconian in the first place. Their mistake was to allow political dogma to interfere with rational thinking. It was obvious from the beginning that attacking the disposable income of the bottom 85% of the electors was going to damage the domestic economy which is by far the greatest factor in levels of economic activity. Some retrenchment was inevitable but they went too far, too fast and targeted the wrong percentile. The statement 'we are all in it together' was always palpably untrue. Have you noticed that many makers of luxury goods are reporting good trade and bouyant activity? 

What we need is imaginative and draconian action in other directions. One of the biggest drags on reduction of government expenditure is the grip of contracts entered into in what looks now like a remote era when money was plentiful.  We all know the list and the reasons why they are not being addressed and attacked. Modern government, of whatever party, is dependent on the large capital holders and they have a stranglehold on policy. This must be broken, forget party funding from developers lobbying for changes to planning. Forget the finer feelings of the new sector buying and selling PFI contracts. Bring in legislation which will allow all government contracts to be re-negotiated in the light of present economic circumstances. Scrutinise all advisory and consultancy services to government. Make all outside members of regulatory authorities declare their interests and bar anyone who has a negative track record in the field they are legislating on. One immensly valuable service that Private Eye does continually is to flag up the nepotism and insider influence that is embedded in the bodies supposedly 'regulating' policy making. One could be forgiven for suspecting that there is a cadre of candidates that is a closed shop. The main qualification seems to be that 'safe hands' are needed who won't rock the boat. It's a governing influence inside government that has its own agenda and operates with barefaced contempt of the actual needs or stated opinions of the electorate.

Could it ever happen? I doubt it because over the years we have allowed this 'establishment' to gain control. In the old days it was the aristocracy and landed magnates, it became the industrialists  controlling manufacturing profit, it is now the capital holders in the financial sector. That's where power really resides and the government's hands are tied. Can you imagine the consequence of making re-negotiation of all government contracts mandatory? 

On a more immediate note, I have a silly question, £75billion pounds has been manufactured to purchase industrial bonds etc. QE.  That's about £12,000 for every person in the UK. If every person had been credited with £12,000 would the money have got to the real economy faster than by pouring it into the coffers of the large capital holders? Which way would have the greater effect on the domestic economy? I told you it was a silly question......


Stanley Challenger Graham




Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk Go to Top of Page
Bruff
Regular Member


479 Posts
Posted - 07/10/2011 : 09:26
Personally, I think the HRA is an excellent piece of legislation, well-drafted and stating broad principles thus allowing for judicial interpretation.  It says something that in attempting to point out its absurdity, people are reduced to ridiculous parsing of interpretations to suggest that the HRA allows for a 'right' to be upheld through the ownership of a cat.  Quite ridiculous.  I can well imagine the antipathy of many people to the HRA on the grounds of the common perception of it being a part of a malign European plot (it's not of course), but take exception to this antipathy being manifest via willful untruths and scaremongering.

 
There is one part of the HRA as drafted that is problematic as far as I can see given recent developments, and that's Article 2.  Freedom from torture is an unqualified 'right' with no derogations and therefore runs up against the legitimate desire for Government's to deport terrorists (who after all have attacked the State) to their origins where indeed torture may exist.  This is no reason though to rip up the Act.  To do so would be to forgo your own rights in the desire to ensure others don't have any.  It is not outwith the brains of the political class, the civil service and judiciary to manage this problem within the usual checks and balances of legislative development.

 
Richard Broughton



Go to Top of Page
Tardis
Regular Member


453 Posts
Posted - 07/10/2011 : 10:30
QE and down grades of many UK banks, so the financial situation is going to get worse because the banks will be able to borrow at more expensive rates and thus this will be passed on.

I note the Halifax is stating that there is finally movement in the housing market, downwards. So the corrections are coming, albeit slowly.

I have no sympathy for QE, but when no new banks are being formed and we seem ill prepared for getting rid of the zombies there is very little room for manoever. All that it will mean to foreigners is "look how cheap those assets are". Companies that move deprive the exchequor of monies and the burden of tax falls back upon those who have no choice.

As to the IHR as enacted within the UK, I know very little about it having never been subjected to its consequences, but a friend tells me that it is the usual dogs breakfast of legislation that is a lawyers paradise which characterised the last 13 years of massive statutory instruments pushed through without much thought or scrutiny. It is why the judges are having so many issues with interpreting it.

Edited by - Tardis on 07/10/2011 10:33:01


Go to Top of Page
Bruff
Regular Member


479 Posts
Posted - 07/10/2011 : 14:57
Fundamentally, the HRA is about protecting the individual against the vagaries of public authorities.  Very many for example elderly, young, disabled or otherwise infirm, learning impaired, LGBT, yes even and rightly the criminally convicted on occasions, are protected against the intransigence of public authorities via the Act.  This is the bread and butter of the Act's operation day in, day out.  It is only a lawyer's paradise to the extent that as a society we are rather tolerant of partial behaviour by decision-makers.

 
As an aside I don't think judges have any difficulty in interpreting the Act, rather folk have difficulty with the judges' interpretation(s).  Though if they read 999 out of a 1000 judgements they wouldn't.  Such are public perceptions made however - the 1 in a 1000 that raise an eyebrow. 

 
Richard Broughton 



Go to Top of Page
Tardis
Regular Member


453 Posts
Posted - 07/10/2011 : 15:18
I'm afraid the IHR act doesn't stop the intransigence of authorities, it may slow them down a little though.

Under Common Law all English people have the right to have their cases heard by a jury of their peers, and the right to question the evidence against them. The country did not need an IHR to confirm and take away some of those rights, nor to push forward voids in understanding that needed legal arguement to clarify. Only once those things have been done are the judges allowed to pass sentence.

The Middle Ages did many things but we still have the same principles of Law, and the Statute as pushed through Parliament was neither specific nor directional (as a statutary instrument must be to remain uncomplicated), thus the legislation as passed may not have had the intended consequences.

To read the judges statements is rather missing the point, their job is to interpret the law as written through legal arguement because the whole legal system is based upon their impartiality and the ability of counsel to argue the different pieces of Law which apply in the case being considered. They do not set the framework, only the parameters within which future cases of law may refer as representative. Hence, you should always have the best and most reputable Counsel that you can afford because it is their job to both question the evidence and interpret the Law in the case being tried.

Edited by - Tardis on 07/10/2011 15:20


Go to Top of Page
Tardis
Regular Member


453 Posts
Posted - 07/10/2011 : 15:28
Local Politics:

LCC's campaign for the drop pavements for the easy movement of the disabled and those in motorised scooters continues apace.

The crossings at the corner for Gisburn Road School may be about to be redone (maybe one will be upgraded to a puffin), there is talk of a pelican on Kelbrook road, near the swimming pool/sports centre, and also maybe one to go in somewhere near the new Spar down on Skipton Road.

If Tesco arrives, there will be some movement on the roads too because of access, visibilty and amount of traffic. Sounds substantial, although they didn't know that the Green now had Town Green status which might complicate some of their original thoughts.

The 20mph signs should appear soon, then the 40mph on Gisburn Road out of town to Bracewell (too many accidents), 30mph through Bracewell, and then 50mph down to the main road. Some speed alert signs too for Kelbrook Road, Skipton Road, and Gisburn Road.


Go to Top of Page
thomo
Barlick Born Old Salt


2021 Posts
Posted - 07/10/2011 : 15:45
I think that in the middle of all this highly qualified debate there is something missing. There are many in this country who see some of the legislation as working more in the favour of the wrong doer than the victim, the press may be to blame for some of this. The country is viewed by some as an easy entry target to escape to, and once here, they are protected, possibly even housed and fed. This does not sit well with people who are honest and hard working whatever their ethnic backgrounds are. I would like to see more effort applied to preventing entry to "undesireables" rather than hear about the manifold reasons why they should remain.


thomo Go to Top of Page
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart


36804 Posts
Posted - 09/10/2011 : 04:59
Dr Fox sinks further into the mire and Cameron takes a hand. He should be very careful because what he is investigating is, at its heart, the question of allowing a person access to what could be sensitive processes without getting a full security vetting. This is exactly the mistake he made with Coulson.

 See this LINK for an intriguing error made by Chris Hune when he pressed the wrong button and made a private message public.Politics can be a nasty business.


Stanley Challenger Graham




Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk Go to Top of Page
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart


36804 Posts
Posted - 10/10/2011 : 05:40
Dr Fox attempts to defuse today's denoument when Downing Street considers its options. His statement is worth studying if you're a connoiseur of 'non-apologies', someone spent a lot of time drafting it and the result sounds plausible until you examine it carefully. This is the nasty face of politics on many levels. Arms dealers, big contracts, 'private' meetings off the record and a 'fixer' who wasn't positively vetted and is a personal friend. Cameron is on dodgy ground and somebody is going to make the connection between this and the Cameron/Coulson connection.

There was a good profile yesterday on R4 of Justice Levison who is running the hacking enquiry. Impressive. I would not like to be up in front of him on a charge! 

 The first Euro bank fails because of bum loans to sovereign states in trouble. Dexia Bank in Belgium is to be bought by the government and broken up. They have been in trouble since 2008, shares were trashed by 90%. They are not the only bank affected and the problem is that the ECB and the French and German governments are arguing that the support necessary to keep them afloat should come from individual governments and not the Central Bank. In other words, Germany isn't going to automatically bankroll them. It remains to be seen how this will pan out but the prospect isn't good and the rest of the world is watching. The general opinion is that this could possibly trigger global recession as inter-bank lending dries up. This could make 2008 look like a minor event. 

UK public service cuts were predicted to result in 400,000 job losses between 2010 and 2016. This estimate has now been revised, the cuts will come earlier and be deeper. Deep Joy!

Depressing, I haven't seen anything like this in my lifetime, not even in the immediate post-war period when we were flat broke. The only consolation is that we survived!


Stanley Challenger Graham




Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk Go to Top of Page
belle
VIP Member


6502 Posts
Posted - 10/10/2011 : 12:01
I think it is interesting that you flag up that you haven't seen anything like this in your lifetime..I felt from the very begining of the downturn, when everyone was harping on about sub-prime mortgages, this was going to be a different and far more reaching recession to any we'd seen before..it astonished me that so many spoke about double dip, as though there had been some sort of upturn in the slow sliding into financial disaster...I still feel this may be a catalyst for a complete shift in world power..that in times to come people will look back at this crisis as the begining of a world that looks entirely different to the one that went into the crisis in the first place.


Life is what you make itGo to Top of Page
Topic is 51 Pages Long:
Go to Page
  First Page  Previous Page    29  30  31  [32]  33  34   Next Page  Last Page
 


Set us as your default homepage Bookmark us Privacy   Copyright 2004-2011 www.oneguyfrombarlick.co.uk All Rights Reserved. Design by: Frost SkyPortal.net Go To Top Of Page

Page load time - 0.578