Share this content
0
16
2124

BRITISH Human Rights Act

BRITISH Human Rights Act

The government is proposing to replace the Human Rights Act with a BRITISH Human Rights Act.

Presumably the right to a fair trial, freedom of religion, etcetera will remain pretty much the same as they are under the european Act but what rights should we have enshrined in this Act over "the state".

For example, should Accountants have the same rights to claim privalege that solicitors have regarding their client's affairs ?

Should HMRC have any rights to working papers?

What protection should honest citizens have against an over-zealous state, particularly in the form of tax inspectors ?

 Indeed, should it be enshrined in law that when tax inspectors make "assessments" the taxpayer should be innocent until PROVEN guilty, not assumed to be guilty unless he can prove his innocence as is currently the case?

Replies

Please login or register to join the discussion.

16th Aug 2011 19:44

What about people who leave the toilet seat up?

Sorry a bit crass I know but when you read the human rights already enshrined in the law http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/governmentcitizensandrights/yourrightsandresponsibilities/dg_4002951  and then at the additions you are suggestng I am left wondering about several thousand other subsidiary ills that could be listed by single issue groups, or persons, that would make the act (or bill of rights) unworkable.

So, no, I'm happy with what we have and will wait for the commission to come up with its tinkerings and price tag.

Thanks (1)
16th Aug 2011 21:41

The laws we have already just get ignored!

So what's the point of adding new ones!

Sex & racial discrimination is still rife. It is attitudes that have to change. 

Virtually everyone knows their 'rights' and many think those 'rights' give them carte blanche to walk over everyone else's 'rights'.

Thanks (1)
avatar
16th Aug 2011 22:17

HRA 1998

"Indeed, should it be enshrined in law that when tax inspectors make "assessments" the taxpayer should be innocent until PROVEN guilty, not assumed to be guilty unless he can prove his innocence as is currently the case? ""

 

 """" "   In law a taxpayer is innocent until proven guilty, although the emphasis changes once a tax material irregularity has been proven. The problem is the training of HMRC Officers, the integrity of HMRC Officers/management (and the civil service/Government) who persist in ignoring that law.

Since there is other legislation, scrapping the HRA 1998 would not change things very much, although it would be a green light for public bodies to ignore the law ... and a green light for lawyers to take cases to Europe...at least for the rich.

It is amusing to think that the British, who's lawyers wrote much of the world's human rights legislation, are looking to scrap such laws.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Top_Cat
16th Aug 2011 22:26

I think Shirley & Paul are missing a point -

- the proposal is not to ADD to existing Human Rights Legislation, the intention is to SCRAP the EU Human Rights Act in Britain and have one of our own, to suite our constitution & traditions.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Top_Cat
16th Aug 2011 22:47

To address Pauls concern about toilet seats ..............

.......... the problem isn't with men leaving the seat up - the problem is with women who insist on leaving it down :)

 

In these days of equality of the sexes why should the onus be on the man? Or is this another example of women wanting to be MORE equal than men ?

 

 

Thanks (0)
Jyoti Banerjee
17th Aug 2011 07:17

Hehe

I never thought I would be discussing toilet seats on AWeb .... thanks Paul, for raising the subject ;)

It is a matter of hygiene. If you flush a loo with the seat up ... bacteria gets sprayed into the air. If you put the seat down before flushing, this doesn't occur. 

I am not adverse to a bit of muck and bacteria (it's a bit hard to be scared of it when you muck out 2 horses every day for years), and I doubt any of us are going to die because a loo is flushed with the seat up, so let's not turn it into a battle of the sexes.

EDIT: I agree with Paul, and others, re Human Rights, ie. leave things as they are.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Jimess
Jyoti Banerjee
17th Aug 2011 08:47

Apparently there is a good reason....

[quote=Top_Cat]

.......... the problem isn't with men leaving the seat up - the problem is with women who insist on leaving it down :)

 

I was once informed by a (male) client in the therapy industry that leaving the toilet seat up encourages the flow of energy down the drain.....and depending on where your toilet is placed it could represent money going down the drain. :)  Snippets of information from clients are priceless! 

Thanks (0)
17th Aug 2011 08:24

TC

From what I could gather the idea of establishing a British Bill of Rights was to enshine all of the current HR legislation but to fine tune it to the UK and, more precisely, make it a more permanent part of our constitution.  So yes, you could see that as scrapping (no need for caps) and rewriting but that's certainly not the way in which I've seen it talked about by government or interested parties.

From what I could tell the committee set up to advise on this has yet to report, if not or if there's been a new development, can you provide a link?

Regardless of that, I'm still perplexed by why you think it should try to deal with specifics such as HMRC practice, do you really think this is a valid setion for consideration or are you just preoccupied with it?  Toilet seats or badly evacuated toothpaste tubes aside, would you also want a bit in there about BT denying me my right to walk across the street by ther poorly planned and managed road works?  It's as annoying to me as HMRC are to you.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Top_Cat
17th Aug 2011 08:26

Surprise surprise - I disagree Shirley

ShirleyM

"I agree with Paul, and others, re Human Rights, ie. leave things as they are. "

 

I think we have to ignore the european Act and start again with our own as Mr Camerson is proposing.

The HRA was always badly worded and too open to interpretation. The likes of Cherie Blair then made a fortune by exploiting it to the point where it is interpreted in ways that were never intended.

As with tax loopholes, if they are there then they can be used - until they are closed. Well the HRA has more holes than a string vest and is way beyond repair - so it must be replaced.

The basics would be very similar - for instance the death penalty would still be abolished. But, that would be all - whereas the current HRA legislation has now been twisted to include no death penalty and nothing that might even frighten someone just a bit.

The idea of men taking maternity leave is another example of HR gone daft.  There is a case at present where people sentenced to do community service can't be made to wear distinctive clothing whilst on work parties "as it infringes their human rights".

Yet, pensioners don't have a "human right" to a minimum standard of living. Apparently despite being in europe, pensioners can't claim that they have the right to the same pensions as other europeans (typically 2x what British pensioners receive).

Muslim extremists have successfully claimed that it is their right under HRA to demonstrate with hate filled placards, but citizens apparently don't have a right not to be subjected to such offensive material.

The whole thing is a sick joke, and so broken that the only way to fix it is to put it out of its misery and start again.

 

Thanks (0)
By Locutus
17th Aug 2011 09:18

Do we really need ANY Human Rights Act
We seemed to do OK in the years before the Human Rights Act was introduced. There were plenty of other good laws developed over the centuries that helped to fight injustice.

It's a case of a solution looking for a problem.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Top_Cat
17th Aug 2011 09:28

 Paul Scholes
 Paul Scholes

"Regardless of that, I'm still perplexed by why you think it should try to deal with specifics such as HMRC practice, do you really think this is a valid setion for consideration or are you just preoccupied with it? "

 

The existing HRA makes some reference to the rights of the citizen against the state.

During the 13 years under labour the power of the state over its citizens grew immensly. There are over 1,000 (yes that is one thousand) laws giving the authorities the right to enter your home by force.

Your details & personal data is on hundreds of data bases - and you have no right to see the entries to check if they are accurate. 

Many of these data bases are held by local councils - complain about your bins not being emptied and your name can be listed as a "troublemaker" - everyone on the "troublemaker" list is assumed to be potentially violent and any children they have are immediately put on the "at risk" register. Don't laugh - it happens.

In our particular line of work it is the tax man we come into contact (and conflict) with most often. Do you really think that based on the word of one tax inspector, with no evidence, and no judicial restraint, it is right that a tax inspector can smash your door down, walk into your office, seize your computers, seize all your files, freeze your bank accounts, with no explanation?  Well he can.

And even more frighteningly, it's not just foreign police who can now turn up in Britain, arrest someone, and drag them back to some east european banana republic without even a court order - foreign tax inspectors can too.

So the redrafting of the HRA into a British HRA may seem like tinkering, but it really is much more.  

 

Thanks (0)
17th Aug 2011 09:53

TC &/or Mr Cameron

So it's you that wants to scrap it and it's you that has reported your views?

This topic is taking on a familiar bad smell.

Your "examples" of HMRC practice, male maternity leave, demonstrators, humiliating those doing community service and presumably the banning of making naughty or stupid children stand in the corner with pointed hats on, are interpretations of HR legislation not the legislation itself.  Have you read the Act, have you read what HR legislation, that's been around now for 60 years seeks to enshrine? What bits would you do away with?

I'm out of this one, you deliberately raised the issue with HMRC as the lead in an attempt to justify it's inclusion in Any Answers whereas as you know this is no longer the place for personal rants.

 

Thanks (2)
17th Aug 2011 10:10

I agree, Paul

"The likes of Cherie Blair then made a fortune by exploiting it to the point where it is interpreted in ways that were never intended." 

There will always be someone, somewhere, looking for loopholes. That's life!

Like Paul, I am not interested in another 'discussion' about Blair, Brown, perceived injustice, or the following remark either!

"Or is this another example of women wanting to be MORE equal than men ?" 

TC - I already know your views on all of the above topics (unless you have changed your view???). I see no benefit from going through it all again.

EDIT: to be fair, you did give me a giggle, or two. Few people could turn a loo seat comment into an opportunity for a sexist remark. I applaud your consistency.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Top_Cat
17th Aug 2011 10:16

-

So Paul has decided to attempt to sabotage a thread because HE doesnt like it.

It's nice of you Paul to try to misrepresent, twist & distort what has beeh said, and to then follow that up with false accusations. Indeed I find the final paragraph of your post offensive and grossly insulting.

Since the propsal by government is that this legislation should be re-written (and the existing Act would be scrapped as the proposal is to REPLACE it in Britain with our own HRA, not "ammend" it) I SPECIFICALLY asked what safeguards and rights should be built into it for the protection of citizens against "the state", specifically against oppresive behaviour by the tax authorities.

YOU raised other issues, and I mentioned them in passing by way of illustration of points, nothing more.

 

Your attempt to sabotage the thread and to make totally false and offensive accusations say a great deal about you and your motivation.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Top_Cat
17th Aug 2011 10:22

Logic

ShirleyM

EDIT: to be fair, you did give me a giggle, or two. Few people could turn a loo seat comment into an opportunity for a sexist remark. I applaud your consistency. "

 

There you go hiding behind terms like "sexist".  Try looking at the post again - it is actually a totally logical response - why should the demands of one gender be give priority over those of the opposite gender?  Isn't THAT sexism ?

Logic - something that seems to have been lost in the rush to label everything as some form of *ism.

 

Thanks (0)
17th Aug 2011 10:45

Political mouthpiece

We are not about to let AA be used by anyone as a mouthpiece for their own political agenda.

This was a thinly veiled rule-dodge: using an accounting example purely to prevent us from moving it into Time Out.  But I'm afraid we are closing the thread.

Thanks (2)