Off Topic The Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Should the UK remain a part of the EU or leave?

  • Stay in

    Votes: 56 47.9%

  • Get out

    Votes: 61 52.1%
  • Total voters
    117
  • Poll closed .
Rod Bishop‏@rodbishop15 Oct 21
Follow Follow @rodbishop15
Just when you think Corbyns hate mob can’t sink any lower they lay into our vets and their supporters.



You must log in or register to see images
 
  • Like
Reactions: Goldhawk-Road
this is why you should do the job yourself and not rely on cheaper sub contractors

Hesitant hitmen jailed over botched assassination in China
  • 22 October 2019
You must log in or register to see images
Image copyright Nanning Intermediate People's Court
A group of hitmen have been jailed after repeatedly trying to subcontract a job to each other in Guangxi, China.
Businessman Tan Youhui hired a hitman to "take out" his competitor for $282,000 (£218,000), a court heard.
But the hitman hired another man to do the job, offering $141,000. That man hired another hitman, who hired another hitman, who hired another hitman.
The plan crumbled when the final hitman met the man, named only as Wei, in a cafe and proposed faking his death.
All six men - the five hitmen and Tan - were convicted of attempted murder by the court in Nanning, Guangxi, following a trial that lasted three years.
What happened?
The saga of the subcontracted hitmen dates back to a professional dispute in 2013, when Mr Wei took legal action against Tan's firm, the Nanning Intermediate People's Court said on its website.
Scared of losing money fighting a lengthy court case, Tan contacted hitman Xi Guangan and offered him ¥2m ($282,000) to kill Mr Wei.
Xi accepted the job but shortly afterwards asked another hitman, Mo Tianxiang, to kill Mr Wei instead, offering him ¥1m. After Mo accepted, Xi renegotiated with Tan to be paid another ¥1m after the killing.
But Mo in turn contacted another man, Yang Kangsheng, who agreed to carry out the killing for an upfront fee of ¥270,000, with another ¥500,000 to be paid afterwards.
Yang Kangsheng then offered another hitman, Yang Guangsheng, ¥200,000 to assassinate Mr Wei, also with a bonus of ¥500,000 after completion.
Finally, the chain came to an end when Yang Guangsheng offered a fifth hitman, Ling Xiansi, ¥100,000 to kill Mr Wei.
You must log in or register to see images
Image copyright Nanning Intermediate People's Court
Image caption All six men - including the businessman who originally called the hit - were jailed
Instead of carrying out the murder, Ling met up with Mr Wei in a cafe, told him there was a hit on him and proposed a plan - that the two of them fake the murder.
Mr Wei agreed to pose, gagged and bound, for a photo that Ling could take back to Yang Guangsheng - before later reporting the case to the police.
The case initially went to trial in 2016, but the six defendants were acquitted due to a lack of evidence. Prosecutors appealed against the decision, and the second trial lasted three years.
Tan, who hired the original hitman, was sentenced to five years in prison, while Xi, the first hitman, was sentenced to three years and six months.
Yang Kangsheng and Yang Guangsheng were sentenced to three years and three months, Mo was sentenced to three years, and Ling was sentenced to two years and seven months.
 
kiwiqpr said:
this is why you should do the job yourself and not rely on cheaper sub contractors

Hesitant hitmen jailed over botched assassination in China
  • 22 October 2019
You must log in or register to see images
Image copyright Nanning Intermediate People's Court
A group of hitmen have been jailed after repeatedly trying to subcontract a job to each other in Guangxi, China.
Businessman Tan Youhui hired a hitman to "take out" his competitor for $282,000 (£218,000), a court heard.
But the hitman hired another man to do the job, offering $141,000. That man hired another hitman, who hired another hitman, who hired another hitman.
The plan crumbled when the final hitman met the man, named only as Wei, in a cafe and proposed faking his death.
All six men - the five hitmen and Tan - were convicted of attempted murder by the court in Nanning, Guangxi, following a trial that lasted three years.
What happened?
The saga of the subcontracted hitmen dates back to a professional dispute in 2013, when Mr Wei took legal action against Tan's firm, the Nanning Intermediate People's Court said on its website.
Scared of losing money fighting a lengthy court case, Tan contacted hitman Xi Guangan and offered him ¥2m ($282,000) to kill Mr Wei.
Xi accepted the job but shortly afterwards asked another hitman, Mo Tianxiang, to kill Mr Wei instead, offering him ¥1m. After Mo accepted, Xi renegotiated with Tan to be paid another ¥1m after the killing.
But Mo in turn contacted another man, Yang Kangsheng, who agreed to carry out the killing for an upfront fee of ¥270,000, with another ¥500,000 to be paid afterwards.
Yang Kangsheng then offered another hitman, Yang Guangsheng, ¥200,000 to assassinate Mr Wei, also with a bonus of ¥500,000 after completion.
Finally, the chain came to an end when Yang Guangsheng offered a fifth hitman, Ling Xiansi, ¥100,000 to kill Mr Wei.
You must log in or register to see images
Image copyright Nanning Intermediate People's Court
Image caption All six men - including the businessman who originally called the hit - were jailed
Instead of carrying out the murder, Ling met up with Mr Wei in a cafe, told him there was a hit on him and proposed a plan - that the two of them fake the murder.
Mr Wei agreed to pose, gagged and bound, for a photo that Ling could take back to Yang Guangsheng - before later reporting the case to the police.
The case initially went to trial in 2016, but the six defendants were acquitted due to a lack of evidence. Prosecutors appealed against the decision, and the second trial lasted three years.
Tan, who hired the original hitman, was sentenced to five years in prison, while Xi, the first hitman, was sentenced to three years and six months.
Yang Kangsheng and Yang Guangsheng were sentenced to three years and three months, Mo was sentenced to three years, and Ling was sentenced to two years and seven months.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a typical council building contract, more subs than the Russian navy...
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiwiqpr
kiwiqpr said:
not long enough to be one of mine

Laval, Viking Line and the Limited Right to Strike
Author:
Daniel Ornstein, Herbert Smith
Topics:
Trade unions, Cross border/non-UK employment law
Two European Court of Justice rulings, Viking Line and Laval, have a potentially far-reaching impact on the lawfulness of industrial action in the UK. In both cases, employees sought to strike to protest against plans to replace workers from one EU country with lower-paid workers from another. The central legal issue was the tension between the freedoms of movement and establishment (under articles 49 and 43 of EC Treaty) and the lawfulness of industrial action that could limit those freedoms. Daniel Ornstein focuses on three aspects of the rulings. First, they place new limitations on the lawfulness of industrial action. Secondly, where industrial action is potentially incompatible with community law, they require the UK courts to adopt a radically new approach to applications for injunctive relief to prevent industrial action. Thirdly, while on the surface the rulings are limited to where there is an international element involving more than one community member state, the influence of the decisions may nonetheless be far-reaching


Laval
Latvian construction company Laval posted workers to Sweden to work for its Swedish subsidiary, Baltic Bygg. The Swedish construction union sought to persuade the subsidiary to enter into a collective agreement that provided for more favourable terms. When talks broke down, the union blockaded one of Laval's building sites. As a result, the contract that Baltic Bygg was working on was terminated and subsequently Baltic Bygg was declared bankrupt. Laval then began proceedings in Sweden for a declaration that the industrial action was illegal on the grounds that the union was infringing its rights under article 49 of the EC Treaty to freedom of movement (and specifically its rights to provide services in Sweden). The court referred the matter to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).


Viking Line
Viking Line operated a ferry, the Rosella, between Finland and Estonia. The Rosella sailed under the Finnish flag and employed its crew under a collective agreement with the Finnish Seaman's Union (FSU), which meant the crew were paid at Finnish wage levels.
The Rosella was operating at a loss and Viking Line wished to reflag it as an Estonian ship and enter into a collective bargaining agreement with an Estonian union, which would have led to lower wages. The FSU objected to the reflagging and in support the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) asked all affiliated member unions not to negotiate with Viking Line. This prevented Viking Line dealing with the Estonian union. The FSU then gave notice of its intention to start industrial action.
In response, Viking Line agreed not to start reflagging. However, once Estonia became a member of the EU, Viking Line applied to the High Court for an injunction requiring the FSU not to interfere (by taking industrial action) with Viking Line's rights to freedom of establishment (ie the right to reflag the Rosella). The High Court found in Viking Line's favour. This decision was appealed to the Court of Appeal, which referred the issue of whether Viking Line could rely on the right to freedom of establishment to challenge the actions taken by a trade union to the ECJ.


Emerging principles
In both cases, the ECJ held that the right to take industrial action is a ''fundamental right which forms an integral part of the general principles of community law''. This might appear a significant pronouncement. However, its significance is undermined by the extent to which the rulings then qualify the right.
The ECJ held that the consequence of recognising that the right to take industrial action has its origins in community law is that the right can only be exercised in a manner that is compatible with that law. The important consequence of this is that the right is fettered in so far as it restricts freedom of movement and freedom of establishment such that where industrial action restricts freedom of movement or establishment, it will only be lawful if it is both justified and proportionate.


Justified and proportionate
The ECJ held in both cases that the issue of whether industrial action is justified and proportionate is a matter for national courts. Nonetheless, it provided guidance as to how to address these issues.
As to justification, the ECJ held that ''the right to take collective action for the protection of workers was a legitimate interest, which in principle justified a restriction of one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty''. As to proportionality (only addressed in Viking Line), it was held that national courts should assess whether the union taking industrial action has ''other means at its disposal which were less restrictive of freedom of establishment'' and has ''exhausted those means''.
These requirements impose significant new restrictions on when industrial action is lawful in the UK. For example, the requirement under UK law for lawful industrial action to relate to a trade dispute (defined in s.218 of Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act and interpreted broadly by the courts), appears wider than the requirement from the ECJ that lawful industrial action must protect workers' rights. Where community rights apply, the narrower ECJ test rather than the broader TULR(C)A will apply.
In addition, the guidance that the ECJ has given on proportionality suggests that the lawfulness of industrial action will depend on matters including the steps a union has taken to try to resolve a dispute, the alternatives to taking industrial action and the level of impact that the issues in dispute has on employees - matters that have no bearing on the lawfulness of industrial action under UK domestic law.


A new approach to injunctions
Normally, employers challenge industrial action through seeking an injunction to stop it.
Before Laval and Viking Line, when determining whether to grant an injunction, the UK courts do not need to address the merits of a dispute. Viking Line and Laval radically change this. The need for industrial action to be legitimate and proportionate, together with the ECJ's guidance on these requirements, means that where community rights apply, the UK courts will have to consider the merits and background of a trade dispute, such as whether it would in fact protect workers' rights and the steps taken to resolve the dispute.
Moreover, because the key to obtaining injunctive relief is to persuade the court that there is a serious issue to be tried, employers will not have to show that community law actually applies or that the action proposed by a trade union is in fact unjustified or disproportionate. Rather, if an employer can merely show that there an arguable case that the proposed industrial action will infringe its rights under community law, there will be good prospects of obtaining an injunction.



The far-reaching international element
Although it may appear that the influence of the Viking Line and Laval cases is restricted because it only applies where there is an international element, this may not be the case.
First, Viking Line and Laval confirm that the magnitude of any restriction to the freedom of movement or establishment is irrelevant. This means that an act of a trade union can be challenged by an employer on community law grounds even if it only results in a trifling restriction to free movement or establishment.
Secondly, there is scope for companies to plan their business affairs in a way that enables them to rely on an international element to challenge industrial action.
Thirdly, it is arguable that the ability to invoke community rights only where there is an international element is of itself a restriction of community rights. This is on the grounds that if an employer has lesser protection against industrial action in relation to, say, a move from Manchester to Liverpool than a move from Manchester to Lodz, this of itself operates (albeit indirectly) as a restriction of an employer's freedom of movement and establishment in the UK because the employer is less free to operate in the UK than in Poland.
There are therefore arguable grounds that the rules governing the lawfulness of industrial action should be as set out by Laval and Viking Line, regardless of whether there is a direct international element. Historically, the ECJ has not been sympathetic to such arguments. However, there have been some indications that the ECJ may be increasingly receptive to applying community rights to purely domestic situations.


Conclusion
These two rulings impose substantive new restrictions on the lawfulness of industrial action and require the UK courts to adopt a new approach to the grant of injunctive relief, at least where there is a direct international element. Moreover, they may also apply where there is very little or even no direct international element. There is therefore every reason to conclude that Viking Line and Laval have provided employers with a potent new weapon with which to oppose industrial action.
Click to expand...

The EU truly is the workers friend...........
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiwiqpr
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back