Off Topic Politics Thread

[Beef]

My best friend is disabled and he does just fine. He gets a good grant off the government and by using a government scheme he has been able to get a car so he has been able to start up a tutoring business and is raking it in.

He is lucky then. But I still see it as the Tories be far more harsh on the poor then rich. I am not saying all poor people will end up with no help. I personal know a guy who has to have his PIP medical again as they have changed the point system. He can hardly walk and has brain damage, yet barely got enough points last time.

I also know of people (through friends of my family) that have killed themselves due to them having their benefits taken away because Atos aren't skilled enough to judge people who have mental health issues. (Not saying atos are the only thing that make them do it. But I am saying they are the tipping point).

 

[- Doing The Lambert Walk]

I'm not totally against the idea of academies. In fact, my secondary school was a grammar school that became an academy.

What I am against, however, is that you don't have to be a qualified teacher to work as a teacher in an academy. The teaching profession has been beat down and over-burdened by successive governments (and that includes the Labour administration).

 

[Beddy]

I'm not totally against the idea of academies. In fact, my secondary school was a grammar school that became an academy.

What I am against, however, is that you don't have to be a qualified teacher to work as a teacher in an academy. The teaching profession has been beat down and over-burdened by successive governments (and that includes the Labour administration).

If unqualified surely you can only be a teachers assistant not a teacher as such?

 

[- Doing The Lambert Walk]

If unqualified surely you can only be a teachers assistant not a teacher as such?

Nope. I was fairly sure about this, but nevertheless I searched it up on the internet earlier.

Academies are free to appoint anyone they see fit to take the role of 'teacher'. There is no requirement for a teaching qualification.

See links below for a bit of background and evidence!

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/academies-to-have-same-freedom-as-free-schools-over-teachers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-19017544
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/jul/27/gove-academies-unqualified-teaching-staff
http://www.theguardian.com/educatio...alified-teachers-state-funded-schools-england

 

[tiggermaster]

My main gripe with the EU system is that the policy makers them selves are unelected. They make up stupid rules and regulations. Yet there doesn't seem much anyone can do about them. The human rights legislation is a prime example it is meant to protect the innocent and needy. Yet in truth is used more to protect the guilty including the terrorist . Thereby actually harming the innocent and needy.
So like all things there is indeed fores and against.

For the sake of clarity the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Union are not the same organisation. The Convention was drafted in 1950, (largely by British Lawyers) and ratified by the European Council of 47 member nations in 1953. The Common Market the forerunner of the EU was sign at the treaty of Rome in 1957 and had Italy, Germany, France and the Benelux countries as it's founding members. It is true that the EU adopted the Convention on Human Rights, which we , UK, were already signed up to.

As to your point about protection the Convention is there to protect people be they innocent or presumed to be innocent until such time as proven otherwise, even then 'the guilty' have rights. How we treat the most despicable surely defines us. One only has to look at how Gadiffi was summarily executed to realise where Libya was headed.

 

[San Tejón]

He is lucky then. But I still see it as the Tories be far more harsh on the poor then rich. I am not saying all poor people will end up with no help. I personal know a guy who has to have his PIP medical again as they have changed the point system. He can hardly walk and has brain damage, yet barely got enough points last time.

I also know of people (through friends of my family) that have killed themselves due to them having their benefits taken away because Atos aren't skilled enough to judge people who have mental health issues. (Not saying atos are the only thing that make them do it. But I am saying they are the tipping point).

It used to be that if you could walk more than 50m, you weren't disabled enough to qualify for payment.
That has now, or is being, changed to 20m. And that is in a perfectly smooth corridor, with none of the imperfections that we all see on the pavements. Nor does it include ramps and steps.
I know people, who could, with extreme effort, walk 20m - but you would need to follow them, with their wheelchair because they sure as hell wouldn't be able to get back to where they left it, without needing a long rest or support, so I really don't know what this test actually proves.

My wife is on ESA and PIP, as a result of small cell lung cancer, that spread to her spine and stopped her legs from working.
She's had surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy, to reduce the tumours, which has extended her life, (for now) but she has to live with continuous pain, and regular doses of painkillers.

She's not capable of doing a job, simply because she is constantly tired and cannot retain information. Her concentration levels are poor and her short term memory is shot to pieces, partly because of the pills, but also as a result of the after effects of some heavy doses of radiotherapy to her brain (given as a precaution), yet an interviewer would probably get enough intelligent responses to claim she was capable of work.
How many jobs are there, that allows someone to sleep for 3-4 hours every afternoon, as a result of chronic fatigue, brought on by a combination of the above?

 

[Beddy]

For the sake of clarity the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Union are not the same organisation. The Convention was drafted in 1950, (largely by British Lawyers) and ratified by the European Council of 47 member nations in 1953. The Common Market the forerunner of the EU was sign at the treaty of Rome in 1957 and had Italy, Germany, France and the Benelux countries as it's founding members. It is true that the EU adopted the Convention on Human Rights, which we , UK, were already signed up to.

As to your point about protection the Convention is there to protect people be they innocent or presumed to be innocent until such time as proven otherwise, even then 'the guilty' have rights. How we treat the most despicable surely defines us. One only has to look at how Gadiffi was summarily executed to realise where Libya was headed.

It still doesn't stop the guilty from taking advantage of the legislation. You will never convince me that it does what it was intended to do which was to protect the innocent. By the very term used that the guilty have rights which while true, shouldn't negate them from being deported if they themselves violate the very treaty set up to protect the innocent. Our own laws are able to take care of these cases. Why should some unelected person tell us our own laws are not correct. Perhaps we should bring back the death penalty so we can dispose of them that way some of the countries do.. Offer them the choice perhaps? The guilty given the choice of returning to their country of birth or the death penalty. I jest of course........however I will not be persuaded that the legislation actually does all that it was designed to do.

 

[Beef]

It used to be that if you could walk more than 50m, you weren't disabled enough to qualify for payment.
That has now, or is being, changed to 20m. And that is in a perfectly smooth corridor, with none of the imperfections that we all see on the pavements. Nor does it include ramps and steps.
I know people, who could, with extreme effort, walk 20m - but you would need to follow them, with their wheelchair because they sure as hell wouldn't be able to get back to where they left it, without needing a long rest or support, so I really don't know what this test actually proves.

My wife is on ESA and PIP, as a result of small cell lung cancer, that spread to her spine and stopped her legs from working.
She's had surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy, to reduce the tumours, which has extended her life, (for now) but she has to live with continuous pain, and regular doses of painkillers.

She's not capable of doing a job, simply because she is constantly tired and cannot retain information. Her concentration levels are poor and her short term memory is shot to pieces, partly because of the pills, but also as a result of the after effects of some heavy doses of radiotherapy to her brain (given as a precaution), yet an interviewer would probably get enough intelligent responses to claim she was capable of work.
How many jobs are there, that allows someone to sleep for 3-4 hours every afternoon, as a result of chronic fatigue, brought on by a combination of the above?

But your wife can move her arms! So she is fine and can work...

I am joking btw and trully feel sorry what has happen to your wife and how it has effected you and your family. The Atos medicals need a huge look into but they won't be. I heard it is costing the government more in appeals then it is to actually get people off ESA.

 

[Archers Road]

I sometimes sense a slight desperation on this thread to point out that nothing the Tories ever do, under any circumstances, can possibly be good. Ever.

Well, I quite like them. I voted for them along with millions of others. And I consider that they are doing a decent job. I also think that this is a decent budget. Help for small businesses, increase in the tax-free allowance and a sugar tax. I also approve of the attempt to balance the books. It's the economics of the madhouse to spend more than comes in forever and a day; it doesn't work for individuals, households or companies and it doesn't work for governments either.

Just in the interests of balance, you know.

I'll leave the thread alone for a while again as I know this isn't something anyone seems to wants to hear. And, by definition, as a Tory, I'm clearly callous and heartless so I'm probably better not heard from.

Vin

I do not agree with what you say - well some of it anyway - but I will gladly defend your right to say it.

For the record, I don't think the tories are evil. They're just defending the interests of the people who formed the party in the first place. Ditto labour under Corbyn. Both have trouble connecting or empathising with great swathes of the population beyond their own narrow tribes.

 

[tiggermaster]

It still doesn't stop the guilty from taking advantage of the legislation. You will never convince me that it does what it was intended to do which was to protect the innocent. By the very term used that the guilty have rights which while true, shouldn't negate them from being deported if they themselves violate the very treaty set up to protect the innocent. Our own laws are able to take care of these cases. Why should some unelected person tell us our own laws are not correct. Perhaps we should bring back the death penalty so we can dispose of them that way some of the countries do.. Offer them the choice perhaps? The guilty given the choice of returning to their country of birth or the death penalty. I jest of course........however I will not be persuaded that the legislation actually does all that it was designed to do.

O.K. one point at a time...
1. The guilty taking advantage of legislation.. no laws are perfect.. be they civil or criminal.. From tax dodgers to terrorists there will always be potential or real loopholes.
2. Article 6 of The European Convention on Human Rights confirms that everybody is entitled to a fair trial. In terms of judicial systems a fair trial being the real test of the rights and protection of the innocent.
3. Our own laws i.e. The Human Rights Act 1998 is intended to reflect the European Convention on Human Rights so the same principles apply.
4. Judges in the European Court of Human Rights are not elected but appointed by the High Contracting Parties, of which Britain is one, for a specific period. Judges in this country are not elected.
5. Interestingly the European Convention on Human Rights does allow for the death penalty under Article 2. Otherwise convicted Nazis would not have been executed, and I am not a supporter of capital punishment.

The contention that the application of the Convention does not achieve all that it was designed to do is almost certainly true, one only has to look at the atrocities across Europe in the past 65 years to realise the limitations. However one does not change fundamental principles because they are violated, I would argue they should be strengthened.

It seems to me that the real difference between your view and mine Beddy is where the decisions are taken. I can only repeat that the European Court on Human Rights is not The European Union. Britain had a leading role in framing the Convention and has opportunity to input when Judges are chosen under the treaty rules. You may argue that Mr Cameron's projected Bill of Rights designed to replace The Human Rights Act 1998 would allow Britain to plough it's own furrow in this area, but I would be careful what you wish for. One only has to note the draconian restrictions being placed on legal aid to realise that the protection of the innocent may not be best served by our current government.

Perhaps we can have a beer sometime and talk football.

 

[Beddy]

O.K. one point at a time...
1. The guilty taking advantage of legislation.. no laws are perfect.. be they civil or criminal.. From tax dodgers to terrorists there will always be potential or real loopholes.
2. Article 6 of The European Convention on Human Rights confirms that everybody is entitled to a fair trial. In terms of judicial systems a fair trial being the real test of the rights and protection of the innocent.
3. Our own laws i.e. The Human Rights Act 1998 is intended to reflect the European Convention on Human Rights so the same principles apply.
4. Judges in the European Court of Human Rights are not elected but appointed by the High Contracting Parties, of which Britain is one, for a specific period. Judges in this country are not elected.
5. Interestingly the European Convention on Human Rights does allow for the death penalty under Article 2. Otherwise convicted Nazis would not have been executed, and I am not a supporter of capital punishment.

The contention that the application of the Convention does not achieve all that it was designed to do is almost certainly true, one only has to look at the atrocities across Europe in the past 65 years to realise the limitations. However one does not change fundamental principles because they are violated, I would argue they should be strengthened.

It seems to me that the real difference between your view and mine Beddy is where the decisions are taken. I can only repeat that the European Court on Human Rights is not The European Union. Britain had a leading role in framing the Convention and has opportunity to input when Judges are chosen under the treaty rules. You may argue that Mr Cameron's projected Bill of Rights designed to replace The Human Rights Act 1998 would allow Britain to plough it's own furrow in this area, but I would be careful what you wish for. One only has to note the draconian restrictions being placed on legal aid to realise that the protection of the innocent may not be best served by our current government.

Perhaps we can have a beer sometime and talk football.

My friend would be delighted.

 

[San Tejón]

But your wife can move her arms! So she is fine and can work...

I am joking btw and trully feel sorry what has happen to your wife and how it has effected you and your family. The Atos medicals need a huge look into but they won't be. I heard it is costing the government more in appeals then it is to actually get people off ESA.

We love black humour, so that made me chuckle.
My wife regularly talks about her future wake, as if she is going to be there, in an active capacity.
She said once "I like crispy chicken, so can we have some at the wake?"
Not everyone will like my response, but it made her laugh when I said,
"Yes, we can have crispy chicken, but I don't want it as crispy as you will be, after you have been cremated."

No one should have to be put through a medical interview, chaired by someone who isn't medically qualified to do so. If a specialist consultant, who has spent X number of years learning and practising in a specified area, says a person is disabled and unfit for work, that should be accepted.
I'm sure some will argue that even specialists can be conned, but the number would be, IMO, minimal and the money lost to their false claims would be recouped by not paying companies, such as ATOS, millions of pounds to provide a not fit for purpose service.
Reference the Government appeals. I recently read that they were launching an appeal, to overturn a judgement for 2 individuals, that would cost the taxpayers a further £50k, or more, on top of the thousands they had already spent on fighting the case in the first place. It beggars belief.

 

[Beef]

Bottom 5th (people in UK) will lose £550 a year by 2020.

Top 5th will gain £250 a year by 2020.

Yeah that sounds fair...

This is from a study done by the Inpedendant Resolution Foundation for all the budget etc since last May.

You must log in or register to see images

 

[tiggermaster]

Bottom 5th (people in UK) will lose £550 a year by 2020.

Top 5th will gain £250 a year by 2020.

Yeah that sounds fair...

Can you give the reference..

 

[I Sorry I Ruined The Party]

Help for small businesses

I see no reason to help small businesses. I mean, there's nothing wrong with small businesses. It's just that there's nothing special about small businesses.

The twin myths of "helping business" and "job creation" are the biggest lies conservatives have sold the public. They're supposed to be believers in the free market and fiscal conservatism. And it's completely against both those principles. Why is this random group of people somehow supposed to be more important than others? And how do they figure that businesses propped up by government money somehow provide the same benefits when they are no longer truly private?

 

[Beef]

Can you give the reference..

Will do. It was a study done by the Inpedendant Resolution Foundation for all the budget etc since last May.

 

[Beef]

You must log in or register to see images

Sugar tax is also just Osborne trying to cover up how crap the budget actually is.

 

[Onionman]

I see no reason to help small businesses. I mean, there's nothing wrong with small businesses. It's just that there's nothing special about small businesses.

The twin myths of "helping business" and "job creation" are the biggest lies conservatives have sold the public. They're supposed to be believers in the free market and fiscal conservatism. And it's completely against both those principles. Why is this random group of people somehow supposed to be more important than others? And how do they figure that businesses propped up by government money somehow provide the same benefits when they are no longer truly private?

I said I'd leave the thread but this deserves an answer.

EDIT: What's the point?

 

[ChilcoSaint]

I just love everybody man.

 

[Whiteley Saint]

But your wife can move her arms! So she is fine and can work...

I am joking btw and trully feel sorry what has happen to your wife and how it has effected you and your family. The Atos medicals need a huge look into but they won't be. I heard it is costing the government more in appeals then it is to actually get people off ESA.

Atos was replaced by by Maximus last year because of all the problems. No idea if they are any better though.