Human rights

[MKG]

So is the same argument going to be applied universally? Because there's a number of people on here who own land but can't live on it, although I'm sure they'd love to build their own hobbit houses without going through the throes of building regulations and planning permission.

One size must fit all.

Mike

[gregorach]

Is it time we came to our senses and decided that this type of legislation needs to be applied with common sense? Or are we going to sit back and accept the stupidity of jobsworth morons who go by the letter of the law even if that letter wasn't actually written in that particular place?

So basically what you're saying is that people should have human rights , except those that you don't think should have human rights? You're basically asking to be able to arbitrarily declare that they don't apply to certain people? Are you sure you've thought this through properly?

Yes, human rights sometimes conflict with what people like to call "natural justice" (but which I prefer to call "kneejerk reaction"). Either we live with that, or we live with the alternative - nobody really has any rights, because the state can declare any notional rights null and void for any reason it likes. I know which option I prefer. Sorry, but there is no "perfect" option, because the whole business has to be administered by human beings. Give the state an opt-out clause, and you've destroyed the entire concept.

[MKG]

No, I'm not saying that. What I believe (a slightly different thing) is that no-one has any "rights" at all. There is merely consensus in law and custom as to what we choose to describe as "rights". If we wish to retain a sane society, then we must apply the laws and regulations which form a major part of the definition of that society, whether we like them or not.

Half of the Dale Farm site has been turned into a residential area illegally. Either apply the law and restore the site to its original status or scrap the law and allow anyone who owns a bit of land to build on it as they see fit. The fact that the people involved are travellers is irrelevant, but has been used to cloud the issue.

Mike

EDIT: I'm still trying to puzzle out which particular "human right" has been breached.

[gregorach]

Either apply the law and restore the site to its original status or scrap the law and allow anyone who owns a bit of land to build on it as they see fit.

The problem here, as I understand it (and bearing in mind that I haven't followed the issue closely or looked into the detail of the legal arguments), is that we have two bits of law that are in conflict (if this wasn't the position, they wouldn't have been granted an injunction). The way we resolve these conflicts is through the courts. That is what is happening. You don't get to arbitrarily decide which takes precedence simply because you don't like the plaintiffs.

I am having a hard time believing that the courts have decided to rule contrary to the law simply because they want to hug some travellers, which seems to be what you're arguing here. There is a valid legal dispute being worked out through the courts.

[grahamhobbs]

............................................ The fact that the people involved are travellers is irrelevant, but has been used to cloud the issue.

Mike

The problem is that the travellers traditional 'right', to park up on any common ground, has been taken away from them and they are only allowed to park up on designated sites. In compensation local authorities had a statutory duty to provide a certain number of sites. This law is flouted by most councils, therefore where do the travellers go?

If your or my family are homeless, the council has a duty to house us, but the travellers are not homeless, they just don't have anywhere to park. They have tried buying their own land, but most councils refuse permission. What should they do?

This group I understand did, what Tinkers Bubble did, buy the land and quite legally ask for retrospective planning approval. Now I can see the argument that the site is now too big, but if permission is refused, does the local authority not have a duty to find them an alternative site or sites? Would it not have been a better use of the £millions that have been spent by the Council in doing just that.

[MKG]

Ah - no. I'm in no way anti-traveller, Dunc. Merely anti-hypocrite.

You've hit the nail on the head - we have a contradiction within our laws. The situation is that a group of people have used the law to challenge the law. And, whatever the outcome, it will be an unsustainable one. If they are allowed to stay on a permanent basis, then it's open-season on planning regulations. If they are forced to move, then one of our laws is proved to be unenforcable and must be removed (and that's the "human rights" one). I know which one of those laws I would want to stay in place.

But my original post was about more than just Dale Farm. I was also crying in my milk about a prisoner throwing a tantrum because he was asked to conform with the way a prison is run. This one, in fact, was my main bugbear, which is that behind a lot of well-meant human rights legislation comes a flock of human-rights sheep which spends its time looking for cases such as his. Those people remind me so much of Health and Safety jobsworths that I find it too much for coincidence. The H&S people have almost made it impossible to do anything in a commercially viable way, and the human rights johnnies are hard on their heels. Find a little issue, scream blue murder about it, hit the headlines, cost the nation millions. For what?

Mike

[MKG]

This group I understand did, what Tinkers Bubble did, buy the land and quite legally ask for retrospective planning approval. Now I can see the argument that the site is now too big, but if permission is refused, does the local authority not have a duty to find them an alternative site or sites? Would it not have been a better use of the £millions that have been spent by the Council in doing just that.

As far as I know, Graham, they did apply for permission on half of the site and received it. What I don't understand is why they did not apply for permission for the other half. What I suspect is that they knew they wouldn't get it. The situation thereafter has been a) complete building on the legal half and b) begin building regardless on the illegal half. That appears to me to be a self-inflicted wound for which they should not expect protection by way of human rights legislation. Yes, local authorities are not living up to their obligations to provide suitable sites - but that really is a separate issue. Where, previous to this blow-up, were the people from Dale Farm pointing out the lack of suitable sites? Strangely quiet is what they were.

Mike

[gregorach]

But my original post was about more than just Dale Farm. I was also crying in my milk about a prisoner throwing a tantrum because he was asked to conform with the way a prison is run.

Well, on that matter, it's been well-established for many years that slopping out is inhumane and degrading and that it is not legally acceptable. The fact that the prison service hasn't yet caught up is their own fault. Once the ruling has been made (and, IIRC, the original ruling was made over a decade ago) you have to conform to it. It's not use saying "well, this is how we've always done it, so we're going to ignore the law in full knowledge that it will lead to future liabilities." I mean, try that with your taxes and see how far you get...

I'm really not going to get involved in all the H&S bullshit, other than to note that 90% of what everybody thinks they know about H&S is actually outright lies concocted by the gutter press on slow Friday afternoons.

[grahamhobbs]

MKG, you are wrong about the Health & Safety laws. Listen to the Health & Safety Executive that frequently complain about certain organisations are using the laws as an excuse to impose their own rules. This is a result of insurance companies that don't want to pay out and therefore make up ridiculous 'H&S' rules.

We recently had a fire on one of our jobs. A flat roofer set light to the roof whilst using his blowtorch. The Insurance company said he wasn't covered because their H&S rule was that 'there should be no combustible material within 10m of where he was working with the blowtorch'. Now if he had been asked to felt a roof in the middle of a football pitch he may of been able to comply (no he couldn't his clothes and skin are combustible).

[MKG]

Yeah - you're absolutely correct, Dunc.

The man in question is being legally degraded because of the need to slop out.

Raping a child, I believe, is what he's in prison for. Personally, I couldn't give a monkey's about his human rights. To be frank, I don't think anyone else should, either.

Mike

[MKG]

MKG, you are wrong about the Health & Safety laws.

It isn't the legislation itself I was talking about. It's the dorks who apply it to death - just as you say. In the same way, there's something healthy about human rights legislation, but something distasteful about some of the ways in which it can be applied by overzealous jobsworths.

Mike

[gregorach]

Raping a child, I believe, is what he's in prison for. Personally, I couldn't give a monkey's about his human rights. To be frank, I don't think anyone else should, either.

And we're backing to having your cake and eating it...

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

If you don't give a monkey's about his human rights, why should anyone give a monkeys about yours? The whole point of human rights is that they apply to everybody, including - in fact, especially - the people that the average man in the street would be happy to see lynched. Whether that happens to be child rapists or Jews is irrelevant - it's human rights for all, or human rights for none.

[gregorach]

MKG, you are wrong about the Health & Safety laws.

It isn't the legislation itself I was talking about. It's the dorks who apply it to death - just as you say. In the same way, there's something healthy about human rights legislation, but something distasteful about some of the ways in which it can be applied by overzealous jobsworths.

Mike

And this is exactly what I meant about there being no perfect system... The system can always be exploited one way or another, the question is merely which form of exploitation you'd like to make more difficult (note: not impossible, just more difficult) - the exploitation which allows ordinary people to tie up the state in court for years, or the exploitation which allows the state to destroy people's lives with impunity. Pick one.

[RuthG]

You might be right actually and it's my misunderstanding. Whatever the circs though, there are far more people there than ought to be (H&S rules on overcrowding etc). There are over 1000 people on it! Permission was originally given to only 40 families and now there are over 100 families.

1000 people on 7 acres is not exactly overcrowing - plenty of cities have far higher population density. I'm with Dr Syn: save the money, save the hassle and try to start enforcing responsibilities (Council Tax, for example) instead.

This is green belt land, not an inner city!

[RuthG]

Having had my village overrun with 'travellers', I know what it is like to be surrounded by people you cant trust (and you cant - they steal everything that isnt locked down), I have no sympathy whatsoever with the Dale Farm lot. They should do things the right way round. They applied for retrospective permission - well, they should have done what the rest of law-abiding citizenship has to do - they should have applied first, not after. Then they filled up the other half of the site expecting the world to lie down and say 'ok, you can stay'. But they again did it back to front. As far as Im concerned, they ought to be moved on - they are squatting illegally - and dont get me started on so-called 'squatters' rights' either!