It Never Fails To Amaze Me How Many Things "human Rights" Come Into!

[bednobs]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24818747
how do they think poor people in the third world cope?

[jno]

food and housing might be cheaper in the third world. But the thing is, we're not third world, we're a wealthy nation and shouldn't be held to the standards fo Rwanda.

[rockyracoon]

That's £26000 a year, my brother earns less than that and gets taxed on it, he keeps a roof over his head and has his son living with him.

It's the right decision IMO.

[Old_Geezer]

The term is so misused and misapplied these days that it has become almost meaningless. Normal folk know what a human right is. Maybe some discussion around the edges, but basically the public knows.

[sandyRoe]

They tried to bring Human Rights into it, but failed.

[bednobs]

why not JNO - surely "Human rights" are universal to humans?

[Old_Geezer]

Human rights are, or should be, global. The country in question is not a concern. It's not a national right, it's a human right one has simply for being human.

[bednobs]

perhaps 3rd world was the wrong term and "places where they don'tnhave a welfare state" would be better. These women thought it was against their human rights that the state didn't pay them more money. As i said, human rights are universal, so how do they think poor people where they dont have a welfare state fare?

[OILhead]

While not necessarily agreeing with the challenge in this case to the benefits cap, the HRA does have a number of principles in it which would seem to make this very relevant to this challenge - the right to private and family life and home (so assume their argument was that cap threatened their family life and home), the right to marry and start a family, the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property, protection from discrimination in respect of any of the rights (again I assume that the claim was that as single mothers they were being adversely affected and claiming this was discriminatory)

So I actually think that the HRA was very relevant to this appeal, not that I necessarily agree with the appeal itself.

[sandyRoe]

Would these English mothers, with their concerns that this benefits cap will reduce them to beggary, be concerned about people in the 3rd World?

[bednobs]

really don't get it OILhead. Are you saying that as human rights are universal to humans, anyone in the world should be able to take their government to court because they can't afford a big house?

[jno]

sort of, bednobs, but if (for instance) you have a right to a roof over your head, or a fair trial, then it's still going to cost more in some countries than others.

[jno]

sorry, that was in response to your earlier post, not your answer to OILhead

[bednobs]

but i don't see how reducing benefits to £500 A WEEK (that's tax free BTW) means you can't afford a roof over your head, even in this country

[OILhead]

No I am not - I said I don't agree with the appeal but I can see how the HRA has been used for the basis of this appeal.

Actually I would go further - I think that to use the HRA for nonsense such as this when they will still have an income of 26k and there are people being forced into slavery, mutilated, tortured, etc means that the value/meaning of universal human rights are undermined and belittled.

[ludwig]

// Lawyers acting for three mothers and one child from each family, all from the London area, said the "cruel and arbitrary" measure was "reminiscent of the days of the workhouse", and the women feared it would leave them destitute. //

Capped at 26K. It's not exactly the workhouse.

[jno]

I dont think human rights cover this case, and neither did the court. It was only an argument, and it was rejected. But I was just answering the original question about how third world people cope: well, lots of them don't, and die. But I don't think that's a comparison that should be made for peoiple in the UK.

[ludwig]

// But I don't think that's a comparison that should be made for peoiple in the UK. //

jno is right. (blimey did I just say that?)
It's irrelevant how people in the 3rd world cope (or don't). What matters is whether the amount is fair and reasonable for people in this country to live on.
As it's apprently based on the average income, I'd say it's extremely fair.

[FredPuli43]

We have always had 'human rights'. Anybody could go to the High Court and plead that the behaviour of government, or any other person or body, was treating them unjustly.

The difference now is that there is an Act of Parliament, tainted with the vile odour of Europe, which a) wakes up lawyers who didn't know the existing law b) sees money for them c) might, conceivably, be a money-spinner in Europe d) can be seized on by anyone who is against the idea of us being connected with Europe at all

[boxtops]

I wish I earned £500 a week these days....

[chrissa1]

Me too, boxtops.