Housing "Refugees" / Economic Migrants - looking for a BETTER Life

[12gauge82]

11 minutes ago, oowee said:

Workers standards and rights are not the same as service standards. 

Separately Apple chooses to use that connection to sell into that market. Good news for waste and the consumer. 

So why reduce workers rights (making them expendable) encouraging turnover and volume rather and lower costs. We have to invest in labour not exploit it. 

^^^^^ This. ^^^^ This and ^^^^^this. Where is the plan, and investment support to produce the quality skills we need. Where is the plan to support stem subjects and learning. It's all so broken under a free market led economy. We will race to the bottom at a time we need to lead from the front. 

If you don't have targeted investment into learning you need more labour. 

Who says we're reducing workers rights? We're looking at replacing the echr, who says what ever replaces it won't be better for workers rights and taloired to the modern world. 

[oowee]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

Who says we're reducing workers rights? We're looking at replacing the echr, who says what ever replaces it won't be better for workers rights and taloired to the modern world. 

Union restrictions, bonfire of EU legislation. Exit from ECHR is designed to reduce rights not improve them. 

[old man]

3 hours ago, Keith 66 said:

A look on companies house website should tell you who the directors are, But its going to be murky working it all out!

Yep, aware of that. sadly my old brain can't decipher that much info.

ie. can't be bothered to waste a cell as they are untouchable anyway.

[12gauge82]

3 hours ago, oowee said:

Union restrictions, bonfire of EU legislation. Exit from ECHR is designed to reduce rights not improve them. 

Reduce rights or prevent restrictive legislation that costs the UK citizen thousands and poses risk to life and limb? Depends on how you judge the current system I suppose. 

I do agree on workers rights in that they should have more protectection and not less. 

[oowee]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

Reduce rights or prevent restrictive legislation that costs the UK citizen thousands and poses risk to life and limb? Depends on how you judge the current system I suppose. 

I do agree on workers rights in that they should have more protectection and not less. 

I completely accept the point you are making but I don't want the UK to rank alongside countries like Russia, China where we either don't sign up or ignore convention as it does not suit current narrative. We as a point of principle, should not only be in these conventions but leading from the front (as we were in the past) writing the rule book for others to follow. It's adherence to the rules that sets the civilised world apart. 

It's a testimony  to our impotence and lack of influence at a global level that has the UK unable to lead the development of such legislation. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

5 hours ago, oowee said:

Union restrictions, bonfire of EU legislation. Exit from ECHR is designed to reduce rights not improve them. 

WRONG, it is "designed" to allow THIS country to govern ITSELF!   

[12gauge82]

38 minutes ago, oowee said:

I completely accept the point you are making but I don't want the UK to rank alongside countries like Russia, China where we either don't sign up or ignore convention as it does not suit current narrative. We as a point of principle, should not only be in these conventions but leading from the front (as we were in the past) writing the rule book for others to follow. It's adherence to the rules that sets the civilised world apart. 

It's a testimony  to our impotence and lack of influence at a global level that has the UK unable to lead the development of such legislation. 

Something we can both agree on. Interesting times ahead. 

[oowee]

1 hour ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

WRONG, it is "designed" to allow THIS country to govern ITSELF!   

By removing the rights of individuals. 

[Yellow Bear]

6 minutes ago, oowee said:

By removing the rights of individuals. 

No, but by removing the rights of France and Germany to impose rules, that IMHO, they do not follow themselves.

Edited April 2, 2023 by Yellow Bear

[Gordon R]

Yellow Bear - on the money.

[oowee]

13 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

No, but by removing the rights of France and Germany to impose rules, that IMHO, they do not follow themselves.

I think you will find they have more say on the matter through the Brexit trade agreement and police and security agreement and the US with the Good Friday agreement. We can scoff and chunder all we like but only geographically are we an island. 

[Yellow Bear]

14 minutes ago, oowee said:

I think you will find they have more say on the matter through the Brexit trade agreement and police and security agreement and the US with the Good Friday agreement. We can scoff and chunder all we like but only geographically are we an island. 

Here we go again as usual stating opinion as if it were fact.   They may have some impact but much much less than before.

[oowee]

22 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

Here we go again as usual stating opinion as if it were fact.   They may have some impact but much much less than before.

Stating an opinion yes. As fact no. I don't have a crystal ball simply repeating what commentators are saying in respect of withdrawal. 

The 2020 trade agreement locks Britain into a number of provisions relating to human rights (fact). The EU could use these provisions against the UK in the event of a UK withdrawal (opinion).  Do you think they would? I think you will find that they have more to say on the matter (opinion).

[Vince Green]

20 hours ago, oowee said:

By removing the rights of individuals. 

What rights are you talking about? or is this some QAnon type of conspiracy?

[oowee]

1 hour ago, Vince Green said:

What rights are you talking about? or is this some QAnon type of conspiracy?

The ECHR guarantees people’s fundamental human rights in law. It has protected us from things like torture, killing, and slavery and assures our freedom of speech, assembly, religion, privacy and much more.

With ECHR human rights cases are heard in UK courts. They can still be appealed to Strasbourg but mostly its done locally. 

[Rewulf]

22 hours ago, oowee said:

I completely accept the point you are making but I don't want the UK to rank alongside countries like Russia, China and the EU where we either don't sign up or ignore convention as it does not suit current narrative.

Fixed that for you.

21 hours ago, oowee said:

By removing the rights of individuals. 

The EU s main aim is to remove the rights of individuals to identify as XXXXX nation, preferring to speak of XXXXX citizens , as EU citizens, who voted for this ?
The first port of call for this junta, was to start removing rights of self determination, the end game is their own army to enforce it.
Unifying currency, culture and law looks good to those of a certain mindset on paper, but then inject a nasty dose of 3rd world 'refugees' into the mix, who flatly refuse to adopt EU values, and a bad idea , turns into a disastrous idea.
Then, when people complain about it , they turn and blame it on the 'nationalistic' element of that nation !

Its happening before your eyes.

[discobob]

8 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Its happening before your eyes.

And a lot more

TBH - I don't think it really matters now - in or out of the EU or whatever, the establishments are all dancing to the same tune. Too many coincidences going on around the world.....

 

[oowee]

14 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Fixed that for you.

The EU s main aim is to remove the rights of individuals to identify as XXXXX nation, preferring to speak of XXXXX citizens , as EU citizens, who voted for this ?
The first port of call for this junta, was to start removing rights of self determination, the end game is their own army to enforce it.
Unifying currency, culture and law looks good to those of a certain mindset on paper, but then inject a nasty dose of 3rd world 'refugees' into the mix, who flatly refuse to adopt EU values, and a bad idea , turns into a disastrous idea.
Then, when people complain about it , they turn and blame it on the 'nationalistic' element of that nation !

Its happening before your eyes.

We left. 

[12gauge82]

18 minutes ago, oowee said:

The ECHR guarantees people’s fundamental human rights in law. It has protected us from things like torture, killing, and slavery and assures our freedom of speech, assembly, religion, privacy and much more.

With ECHR human rights cases are heard in UK courts. They can still be appealed to Strasbourg but mostly its done locally. 

Torture was abolished in the uk in 1640, it was the 19th century before Europe caught up, why do you think we need to look to Europe to come up with human rights laws? We can and have been doing it better for years. 

[Rewulf]

7 minutes ago, oowee said:

We left. 

Did we ?

8 minutes ago, discobob said:

TBH - I don't think it really matters now - in or out of the EU or whatever, the establishments are all dancing to the same tune. Too many coincidences going on around the world.....

The problem is , the establishment doesnt quite get this, they cling on to the ideals of it, such is the disconnect between the voters and the politicians, who seem largely unaccountable, and that counts for both main parties , besides a few who are willing to stick their heads up.

The people overwhelmingly wanted out , the politicians overwhelmingly wanted to stay in, and to this day 7 years later , many of them would betray those who voted for them , and vote to go back in, with whatever carp deal the EU offered us.
Clinging on to the EU dominated ECHR is one vestige of this.

And to say we would lower our expectations of basic human rights by being out of it, is laughable , we invented the system.
We abolished slavery, YEARS before other nations, paid for it , bled for it.
To say getting rid of unaccountable institutions , puts us anywhere near becoming like China or Russia, is ridiculous.
It paves the way to a constitution , where basic rights are guaranteed...for UK citizens, and not those who come here to abuse the system we have , that has a final say in another country we have no control over.

[Vince Green]

5 hours ago, oowee said:

The ECHR guarantees people’s fundamental human rights in law. It has protected us from things like torture, killing, and slavery and assures our freedom of speech, assembly, religion, privacy and much more.

With ECHR human rights cases are heard in UK courts. They can still be appealed to Strasbourg but mostly its done locally. 

I don't remember people getting tortured or killed in this country before we joined the ECHR.  

UK Law covers all these issues perfectly adequately already without the need for external intervention 

What we have at the moment is just a feeding frenzy for parasitic lawyers

[Vince Green]

4 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

Torture was abolished in the uk in 1640, it was the 19th century before Europe caught up, why do you think we need to look to Europe to come up with human rights laws? We can and have been doing it better for years. 

Considering the recent history of Europe you have to wonder who they think they are trying to kid

[oowee]

4 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

Torture was abolished in the uk in 1640, it was the 19th century before Europe caught up, why do you think we need to look to Europe to come up with human rights laws? We can and have been doing it better for years. 

As a consequence of ECHR we export our torture for convenience.

2 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

I don't remember people getting tortured or killed in this country before we joined the ECHR.  

UK Law covers all these issues perfectly adequately already without the need for external intervention 

What we have at the moment is just a feeding frenzy for parasitic lawyers

If that were true why did the UK set up the ECHR in the first place? British lawyers were integral to drafting the text and Winston Churchill was a key early advocate. 

Like it or not it provides a useful back stop ro the exploitation of individuals by govt. Unfortunately it has been called upon bu the UK to advance and protect human rights. Even the freedom of the press legislation stems from it. Without it we will be poorly equipped to defend individuals or call out other countries for their actions. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

11 hours ago, oowee said:

As a consequence of ECHR we export our torture for convenience.

No, it is not torture, it is removal of people who are NOT entitled to be in this country!

[oowee]

36 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

No, it is not torture, it is removal of people who are NOT entitled to be in this country!

? Waterboarding is torture. Collusion and participation by British security services as recent as 2000 to 2010 though CIA so called black sites. It could not be done here because of ECHR. Removing these protections reduces citizens rights.