General election/politics

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

General election/politics

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

I don't agree, Jon.
Nothing to do with this government - you have my 100% agreement on that
But I think the law is right that very few human rights are absolute
They are basically relative - relative to other human rights, and to other considerations
This law doesn't say that the government has carte blanche to override respect for family rights in economic circumstances
It's saying that there are other considerations too, which are allowed to be considered - it's for the courts to decide if they've considered them fairly or not
Hence, in Covid, our human right of respect for family life (and freedom of assocation) etc were overriden because of public health concerns
Or the newspapers have a fundamental human right of freedom of expression but people have a fundamental right of respect for their private life - those two conflict instantly with any news story about Prince Harry, for instance (or anyone else) - there's no priority amongst human rights, it's a question of balance
People use the terms loosly, and wrongly, and blame 'human rights' for protesters being given bacon sandwiches, or whatever. There's nothing in the law that says you can't remove protesters. What the law says is that people have a right to protest, so if you want to remove them you need to consider if that is justified, on balance, given other interests and rights.

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

Coup Droit wrote:
I don't agree, Jon.
Nothing to do with this government - you have my 100% agreement on that
But I think the law is right that very few human rights are absolute
They are basically relative - relative to other human rights, and to other considerations
This law doesn't say that the government has carte blanche to override respect for family rights in economic circumstances
It's saying that there are other considerations too, which are allowed to be considered - it's for the courts to decide if they've considered them fairly or not
Hence, in Covid, our human right of respect for family life (and freedom of assocation) etc were overriden because of public health concerns
Or the newspapers have a fundamental human right of freedom of expression but people have a fundamental right of respect for their private life - those two conflict instantly with any news story about Prince Harry, for instance (or anyone else) - there's no priority amongst human rights, it's a question of balance
People use the terms loosly, and wrongly, and blame 'human rights' for protesters being given bacon sandwiches, or whatever. There's nothing in the law that says you can't remove protesters. What the law says is that people have a right to protest, so if you want to remove them you need to consider if that is justified, on balance, given other interests and rights.

Yes, and I actually agree with you. My beef was that on this occasion, I think that the rights of British people, who have a family and/ or long term partnership that they are committed to and can demonstrate that shouldnt have to pass some economic threshold, which is arbitrary, to be able to come back and live with their family in the UK. My view is that trumps our own economic interest. It seems like the law is being passed that makes the UK economy trump that right, what I feel is a right, and that feels wrong, morally and in terms of what i think is human decency.

so whether its the law or the Government who are responsible, it feels to me it is wrong.

on the rest of what you say, I get it and agree!

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

I wasn't giving an opinion on whether the spousal thing was right or wrong (I'd previously said that I thought it was utterly ridiculous so didn't need to), just explaining the law behind it

But for your arugment of it being wrong, you also have to decide where you think it's fair , if at all. Or do you think the family right trumps the economic interest no matter what?

i.e. was it a breach of Article 8 when it was previously set at £18k?
Or is it only a breach now when it's £38.7k? If so, would is be a breach at 20k? or 25k?
If it wasn't fair at £18k, should it be zero? or 5k?
That's the whole problem with the balancing, you have to pick a spot

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

Coup Droit wrote:
I wasn't giving an opinion on whether the spousal thing was right or wrong (I'd previously said that I thought it was utterly ridiculous so didn't need to), just explaining the law behind it

But for your arugment of it being wrong, you also have to decide where you think it's fair , if at all. Or do you think the family right trumps the economic interest no matter what?

i.e. was it a breach of Article 8 when it was previously set at £18k?
Or is it only a breach now when it's £38.7k? If so, would is be a breach at 20k? or 25k?
If it wasn't fair at £18k, should it be zero? or 5k?
That's the whole problem with the balancing, you have to pick a spot

Ive picked a spot! And it doesnt involve thresholds.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

JonH comes home wrote:
Coup Droit wrote:
I wasn't giving an opinion on whether the spousal thing was right or wrong (I'd previously said that I thought it was utterly ridiculous so didn't need to), just explaining the law behind it

But for your arugment of it being wrong, you also have to decide where you think it's fair , if at all. Or do you think the family right trumps the economic interest no matter what?

i.e. was it a breach of Article 8 when it was previously set at £18k?
Or is it only a breach now when it's £38.7k? If so, would is be a breach at 20k? or 25k?
If it wasn't fair at £18k, should it be zero? or 5k?
That's the whole problem with the balancing, you have to pick a spot
Ive picked a spot! And it doesnt involve thresholds.

Even zero is a threshold biggrin

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

This is good news, a rolling back of the far right.

www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/11/donald-tusk-power-poland-pm-loses-confidence-vote-law-justice

Tusk seems a reasonable man and someone to be able to work with. The PiS were nothing but trouble in Poland

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

Can anyone explain to me how a person who took legal action to try and stop being forced to have over his whatsapp messages suddenly realises he has 'lost' those very same whatsapp messages.

Answers to Rishi Sunak on a post card please.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Didn't they also claim in October or whenever that the messages were set to a one-week disapperaing setting? I mean, it's like a 'let's throw everything at it and see what sticks'

But this is a plea to anyone working at Facebook to do their civic duty and leak the backed up Boris messages - they must be there somewhere

Of course, they'll probably be encrypted

But it won't matter as Boris has always said he'll do anything to help so he will be SO pleased that they've been found, he'll obviously be delighted to un-encrypt them for everyone

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

Coup Droit wrote:
Didn't they also claim in October or whenever that the messages were set to a one-week disapperaing setting? I mean, it's like a 'let's throw everything at it and see what sticks'

But this is a plea to anyone working at Facebook to do their civic duty and leak the backed up Boris messages - they must be there somewhere

Of course, they'll probably be encrypted

But it won't matter as Boris has always said he'll do anything to help so he will be SO pleased that they've been found, he'll obviously be delighted to un-encrypt them for everyone

biggrin

I wondered, though, is there a law or is it just ethical around sharing WhatsApp messages? I keep most of mine, but I know my Dad (who to be fair is 83) deletes ALL of his literally the same day they come in. We laugh at him, but presumably there is no requirement to keep them? Or is there if you are in a position of civic responsibility eg Government? Could my company or , say the police, ask for mine and would it be an issue if, like my Dad, I had deleted them all? Or the relevant ones at least?!

Presumably with a Government minister like Rishi, who claimed he had changed phones several times over the period, he would have a Govt issue phone (presumably he cant use personal phone for work related messages of security importance?) and wouldnt they be backed up when he handed them back, and then securely wiped?

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

JonH comes home wrote:
Coup Droit wrote:
Didn't they also claim in October or whenever that the messages were set to a one-week disapperaing setting? I mean, it's like a 'let's throw everything at it and see what sticks'

But this is a plea to anyone working at Facebook to do their civic duty and leak the backed up Boris messages - they must be there somewhere

Of course, they'll probably be encrypted

But it won't matter as Boris has always said he'll do anything to help so he will be SO pleased that they've been found, he'll obviously be delighted to un-encrypt them for everyone

I wondered, though, is there a law or is it just ethical around sharing WhatsApp messages? I keep most of mine, but I know my Dad (who to be fair is 83) deletes ALL of his literally the same day they come in. We laugh at him, but presumably there is no requirement to keep them? Or is there if you are in a position of civic responsibility eg Government? Could my company or , say the police, ask for mine and would it be an issue if, like my Dad, I had deleted them all? Or the relevant ones at least?!
Presumably with a Government minister like Rishi, who claimed he had changed phones several times over the period, he would have a Govt issue phone (presumably he cant use personal phone for work related messages of security importance?) and wouldnt they be backed up when he handed them back, and then securely wiped?

I believe there were instructions going around at the time that all messages should be saved because of the very scenario (an inquiry) that we are in now.

We should also consider two possibilities:

Either:

The communications were on official government phones - in which case they should be kept as a record of government

or

The communications were on private phones - in which case what were they doing using private phones for official business

Either way, they should be held 'in contempt' and sanctioned accordingly.

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

Bob in Spain wrote:
JonH comes home wrote:
Coup Droit wrote:
Didn't they also claim in October or whenever that the messages were set to a one-week disapperaing setting? I mean, it's like a 'let's throw everything at it and see what sticks'

But this is a plea to anyone working at Facebook to do their civic duty and leak the backed up Boris messages - they must be there somewhere

Of course, they'll probably be encrypted

But it won't matter as Boris has always said he'll do anything to help so he will be SO pleased that they've been found, he'll obviously be delighted to un-encrypt them for everyone

I wondered, though, is there a law or is it just ethical around sharing WhatsApp messages? I keep most of mine, but I know my Dad (who to be fair is 83) deletes ALL of his literally the same day they come in. We laugh at him, but presumably there is no requirement to keep them? Or is there if you are in a position of civic responsibility eg Government? Could my company or , say the police, ask for mine and would it be an issue if, like my Dad, I had deleted them all? Or the relevant ones at least?!
Presumably with a Government minister like Rishi, who claimed he had changed phones several times over the period, he would have a Govt issue phone (presumably he cant use personal phone for work related messages of security importance?) and wouldnt they be backed up when he handed them back, and then securely wiped?
I believe there were instructions going around at the time that all messages should be saved because of the very scenario (an inquiry) that we are in now.
We should also consider two possibilities:
Either:
The communications were on official government phones - in which case they should be kept as a record of government
or
The communications were on private phones - in which case what were they doing using private phones for official business
Either way, they should be held 'in contempt' and sanctioned accordingly.

Spot on

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Someone also has to say:

Rishi, either you were SO utterly stupid and incompetent and off the scale moronic that you managed, somehow, to change phone serveral times and EACH time you forgot to back up your messages, something no numbskull would ever do in a million years

or

You're lying

Which one is it?

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

Coup Droit wrote:
Someone also has to say:

Rishi, either you were SO utterly stupid and incompetent and off the scale moronic that you managed, somehow, to change phone serveral times and EACH time you forgot to back up your messages, something no numbskull would ever do in a million years

or

You're lying

Which one is it?

To quote Jon - spot on.

Elegant Point · Satellite level

Coup Droit wrote:
Someone also has to say:

Rishi, either you were SO utterly stupid and incompetent and off the scale moronic that you managed, somehow, to change phone serveral times and EACH time you forgot to back up your messages, something no numbskull would ever do in a million years

or

You're lying

Which one is it?

Wouldnt even need to remember to back up messages - when I last changed phone, everything was automatically transferred from old to new as part of the set up process. If R using a work phone, assume there would be tech help available if he was unable to transfer it himself?