Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: General election/politics


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 38574
Date:
General election/politics


Coup Droit wrote:
JonH comes home wrote:
Blue_Belle wrote:
Coup Droit wrote:

For the spouses who are already here and renewing visas, the 38,700 is a household income amount

(Not defending it in the slightest !!!! But just to say, it's a joint income figure)

For those who are here and want to bring their spouse over for the first time, it's a single income figure.

The whole thing is utterly ridiculous, both for spouses and skilled workers.

And health workers have been exempted (because - guess what - all the OAPs would suddenly have no care workers or hospital staff or anything if the new skilled worker amount applied to them)



 We are in New Zealand for the next 5-6 years. So as it stands, I would need the near 39k. I don't earn that. But hey, I'm hoping it will change again by then 


 Hey FW- is there not a human rights thing here? If youre British, married for a number of years, with a child, maybe 2, surely you have a right to family life and if that involves coming back to Britain with your family, Id say you have every right. 

 

id like for someone to test that as its outrageous to think we wouldnt let you in due to an earnings threshold? 


 It's been tested, and failed, unfortunately.

Remember, under Article 8, you have right to 'respect' for your family life (not a right to family life), and it's a qualified right, which means it has to be balanced against other rights. So you don't have an absolute right to a family life, in the UK or any other signatory country.

 Article 8 of the Convention Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

 

 

So you can see that, under the ECHR, the government has a right to interfere with the respect for your famly life if it's in the interest of the economic wellbeing of the country.

 


 well, the law is an ass then, as someone once said!



-- Edited by JonH comes home on Thursday 7th of December 2023 11:03:35 PM

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Online
Posts: 53761
Date:

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.

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 38574
Date:

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! 



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Online
Posts: 53761
Date:

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

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 38574
Date:

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. 



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Online
Posts: 53761
Date:

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



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 38574
Date:

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

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Online
Posts: 19268
Date:

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.

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Online
Posts: 53761
Date:

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

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 38574
Date:

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?   



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Online
Posts: 19268
Date:

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


 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?   


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.



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 38574
Date:

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


 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?   


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



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Online
Posts: 53761
Date:

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?

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Online
Posts: 19268
Date:

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.



__________________


Satellite level

Status: Offline
Posts: 1436
Date:

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?



__________________
«First  <  126 27 28 29 3042  >  Last»  | Page of 42  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard