Should it be a 'Human Right' to claim benefits?

Discussion in 'The ARRSE Hole' started by chocolate_frog, Jul 12, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The human right to claim benefits: Jobless could sue for better payments under controversial plan | Mail Online

    All coming in to discussion under a part of the HRA called 'additional rights'. Specifically...

    Good news for lwyers I suppose (and doleys), perhaps not so good news for the people picking up the bill for this forced philantrhopy.
  2. Old news, the German government have already been given a slap by the grim and dismal Oligarchs in Brussels and told to raise their "Hartz4" long term sciver's unemployment benefit.

    That went down like a lead baloon here where many, including skilled workers, have been crunching the numbers. Many find they would have more from life and more money to spend by sitting at home on the dole than they gain by working.
  3. All hail Britains new wealthy Middle Class, the non employed benefit scroungers.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Best be careful what they wish for. Who will set the minimum standard? Experience suggests that the minimum soon becomes the norm.
    Minimum standard of living could include 3 squares a day, place to shelter & social care. Would (probably) not include large TV, beer, own house etc. etc.
  5. Minimum standard of living? Free daily issue of a 24 hour rat pack to go with the state-issued maggot and bivvybag. Crack on.
  6. TheresaMay

    TheresaMay LE Moderator DirtyBAT

    There's a very simple way around all these Human Rights - they just have to add a little bit at the beginning of each one of them:

    Once you have been employed for xx years you are entitled to the Right to claim xx in the event of loss of employment
    Once you have lived here for xx years, you are entitled to the Right to a family life in xx
    Once you have paid xx amount of NI you are entitled to the Right to free health care

    You have to ask yourself why Afghans, Iraqiis etc travel across several European countries in order to get to Britain. If Blair / Brown / Cameron / Clegg are so obsessed with the EU and wanting to spunk the taxpayers money on being committed to the EU - then why not make some of our systems the same as these oh so wonderful countries?

    If you can force people to smoke outside (which affects, let me see ....nobody) because of some gash EU law that most of Europe ignores - then why not force people to do more before they syphon our hard earned wages from our pockets?

    That way you get less spongers, more positive immigration (i.e. those who contribute), more votes at the ballot box and better standard of living for those who do pull their weight. Win-win all round then. And I didn't even need to go to Eton to muster up that little plan.
    • Like Like x 4
  7. And how, pray tell, do these gobshites propose to magic up the money to pay for all this? A minimum standard of living is just that - a minimum standard. A welfare system is important - no-one can help losing their job or falling ill enough to not be able to work - but the benefits paid out should be enough to keep the wolf from the door until you get back on your feet, not a long term solution and not a fucking lifestyle choice.
  8. Its a Mail story. Calm down. the "in other countries" bit is a give away. Basic HR is the right to life and not to have your toenails pulled off with pliers.
    Having read the big list (18?), I didn't see any mention of the right to LCD TV or cheap beer
  9. If you want 3 meals per day, access to reasonable housing, healthcare and education - HM Prison Service provides it all!
  10. At £40k per prisoner per year
    • Like Like x 2
  11. Agreed. The idea of what constitutes a minimum standard of living seems confused. Things like iPhones and Sky subscriptions, not to mention foreign holidays, should not be included.

    That said, I'd actually like to see a more generous welfare system that was managed much more carefully. As I see it, if somebody on £40k loses their job and the Government pays them £35k for 12 months, they're not only protecting that person and their family - but society benefits in that they don't default on the mortgage, etc.
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Der Stuermer engages in its usual pastime of misrepresentation and misreporting for the sole purpose of manufacturing and maintaining public antipathy to any idea of social rights by applying it version reductio ad absurdum to a demonised minority. Or at least, a minority it attempts to consistently demonise. In doing so, it uses its newspaper column to promulgate the government's message under the guise of 'news'! It would not do at all if members of the public were to upset the Government with a positive response to paragraph 49 of the second consultation document issued by the Human Rights Commission. After all, Der Stuermer has a wider readership than consultation documents which are only ever responded to by tiny majority of the public and is less interactive.

    Social rights were very much a part of the original United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (see for example Articles 22 and 23) drafted by the United States at the end of the last war from which the European Convention is derived. The European Convention adopts the political rights from the UN Convention.

    Just as Soviet Citizens during the Brezniev era had been propagandised into believing that they had pioneered every major technological invention since the 17th Century. So too, have British Citizens been continuously propagandised into believing that the United Kingdom drafted the European Convention. The lie is promulgated by the soundbite: 'Bringing Rights Home" in attempt to convince the public that we have a greater moral claim over the convention and therefore more of a moral right to re-draft it in our own image!

    Social rights, which include, inter alia, the right to food, to medial treatment and so on are typical of such rights. The EU adopted a charter of administrative rights were incorporated by treaty into the TFEU from which the United Kingdom opted out of. These would have provided citizens of the EU the right to a remedy for maladministration by public bodies throughout the EU. One can only imagine in light of the appalling public administration that exists in this country, what would have happened had the United Kingdom adopted the charter of fundamental rights. We would all now be queueing around the Block!

    Although EU law derived from the Treaty of Rome is completely separate from Human Rights Law derived from the Council of Europe, the Institutions of the EU operate within the body of social and political rights from which the United Kingdom opted out of.

    However, what is often forgotten is that EU law-making operates within that very framework. Another aspect of EU lawmaking is that is has to be Human Rights Compliant. In short, we will begin to see in the future, the very social rights eschewed by the Political elite in this country and denied to its citizens, slowly being incorporated into domestic law through EU secondary legislation, i.e., Directives.

    Below, in italics is a press release from yesterday issued by the European Parliament. It is interesting for a number of reasons. Firstly, it sets out a proposal for a Directive on social rights relating to access to a lawyer. These were rights that we used to take for granted until they were gradually whittled away by successive governments and now comprise nothing more than a mere telephone discussion with a lawyer following arrest. Secondly, it is the manifestation of an idea that the UK public will never see or hear about in any of the media in the UK. There is almost a conspiracy of silence among our so-called 'free press' to report anything the public might legitimately seek to question their equally so-called 'elected representatives about'.

    I leave it to fellow Arrsers to arrive at their own conclusions:

    "Access to lawyers before police questioning essential,
    say civil liberties MEPs

    Anyone suspected or accused of a criminal offence in the EU should have the right to talk to a lawyer as soon as possible, and before police questioning starts, says the civil liberties committee in amendments to a draft directive adopted on Tuesday. This should include people not under arrest, say MEPs, adding that all communication with the lawyer must always be confidential.

    The new rules should apply as soon as a person is declared a suspect or charged, whether or not he or she is under arrest, says the committee in amendments that strengthen the Commission's initial proposal. The aim is to provide the same rights to a defence and a fair trial under member states' laws across the EU.

    MEPs want EU countries to ensure that all suspects or accused persons are given access to a lawyer as soon as possible, and at the latest before questioning by the police or a judge begins. They say the lawyer should play an active role during the questioning (by making statements or requesting clarifications) and should be able to check the conditions of detention.

    He or she should also be able to present any evidence linked to the charges or request the police to gather it, the civil liberties committee adds.

    "This directive will ensure that suspects and accused persons have adequate access to a lawyer throughout criminal proceedings, so as to exercise their defence rights effectively, and will improve judicial cooperation in the EU by enhancing mutual trust between EU countries and ensuring a high level of protection of fundamental rights. Despite the existence of common principles and minimum standards stemming both from the European Court of Human Rights and the EU Charter, provisions governing access to a lawyer still vary significantly from one Member State another", said rapporteur Elena Oana Antonescu (EPP, RO) after the vote.


    Member states should ensure that suspects or accused persons have at their disposal effective remedies when their right to talk to a lawyer has been breached, say MEPs. Also, any statement made by the suspect or accused person, or evidence obtained in breach of this right, could only be used as evidence against them if this did not prejudice the rights of the defence or the fairness of the proceedings.

    Confidentiality in all instances

    EU countries should ensure, in all circumstances, the confidentiality of meetings between the suspect or accused person and his or her lawyer. They should also guarantee the confidentiality of all other communications, such as correspondence or phone conversations. "Confidentiality is absolute and should not be subject to any exception", MEPs stress.

    Right to communicate upon arrest

    Under the Commission proposal, suspects and accused persons under arrest would have the right to inform someone of their choice, such as a relative or an employer, of their arrest. They could also contact their consulates if they were outside their country, says the draft text. The civil liberties committee agrees with this and says that suspects and accused persons should also have the right to meet privately with the persons they choose to call and with the consular or diplomatic authorities.

    European Arrest Warrant

    Persons detained under a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) would be able to contact a lawyer both in the country where the arrest is carried out and in the one where the warrant is issued. Currently, people sought under an EAW may not have access to a lawyer in the state where the warrant is issued until they are surrendered to that country.


    There are over eight million criminal proceedings in the EU every year. The directive on access to a lawyer and communication upon arrest is the third step in a series of measures to set common EU standards on procedural rights. The first law, adopted by Parliament in June 2010, gave EU citizens facing criminal trials the right to translation and interpretation. The second measure, approved by the EP in December 2012, introduced a "letter of rights" to ensure fair trials across the EU.

    The United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark will opt out of this directive. (my emphasis)

    Next steps

    Tuesday's vote in the civil liberties committee gives Ms Antonescu a mandate to start negotiations with the Council with a view to a first-reading agreement.

    The draft directive was backed, as amended by the committee, by 51 votes to 2, with 4 abstentions."

    The Independent Human Rights Commission have issued a second consultation document. Para 49 of which mentions social rights.
  13. buttfuck.jpg
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Tend to agree with the above.

    Everyone should have a reasonable standard of living, even those who are not currently able to find work or who are unable to work.

    The issue is what constitutes a reasonable standard. If after buying food, toilet paper, heating fuel and electricity and replacing the odd item of worn out clothing at Primark/Asda you still have cash left to go to the pub, then you're above a reasonable standard. You are now able to afford luxuries.

    Other luxuries include holidays, TVs, mobile telephones, cigarettes...
  15. It was in the news this week it seems a couple with two kids NEED £38k per year.