Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:41 pm

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 2:22 pm
Posts: 14137
Location: On the move
Retrospective laws are fascist laws

Here's a question: If the Court of Appeals declares your mandatory labour schemes for the unemployed unlawful on the basis that the rules you drew up were incomprehensible, what on earth can you do to prevent paying compensation to the thousands of people you unlawfully thrust into destitution?

There are a couple of sensible answers to this question:
A legalistic response: You could take the case to the Supreme Court and try to get the Appeal Court ruling overturned.
An honourable response: You could accept responsibility for having drawn up a bunch of unintelligible and unlawful rules and resign from your job. Your successor could then compensate your victims, whilst you took the blame for your disastrous mismanagement of your brief.

As you probably know, the question isn't a hypothetical one, it's a very real one. The minister is the Tory Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith.

If you are familiar with Iain's incredible levels of contempt for the law, the public, the unemployed, the taxpayer, the disabled, the dead, the concept of labour rights and for coherent and rational debate, you'll know that he has absolutely no intention of making a legalistic or honourable response to his blunders.

Iain actually intends to respond to this situation of his own making, by rushing "emergency legislation" through parliament to retrospectively amend the rules.

Iain's response to being told that his botched mandatory labour schemes are unlawful because the rules were unintilligible, is to simply rewrite them and apply them retrospectively, so that had the rules been written that way at the time, people would have been able to understand them.

This is an absurd abuse of process. The imposition of retrospective law is forbidden under Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (no wonder the Tories want to scrap those rights) and it is absolutely bonkers to believe that retrospectively rewriting the rules alters the judgement of the Court of Appeals, in fact it makes their judgement even stronger, given that people will have been punished for failing to comply with rules that hadn't even been written at the time!

If Iain Duncan Smith's "mandatory unpaid labour or destitution" rules were declared unlawful because they were impossible to understand, how possible was it for people at the time to understand the new "emergency" rules that hadn't even been written yet?

It is obviously impossible to understand something that hasn't even been written, therefore this attempt to undermine the Apeals Court ruling is as flawed as it is contemptuous.

There is a very good reason that the imposition of retrospective laws is banned: If the government can simply reclassify past activities as criminal offences, this gives them an incredibly powerful tool to abuse the citizens they are supposed to be serving.

To give a hypothetical example of how retrospectively applied law is totally unfair; Imagine that the drink driving laws are amended to reduce the permissible blood alcohol content from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg (a change that is currently under consultation in Scotland), but that the government use the Iain Duncan Smith precedent (that laws can now be backdated) to apply it for the year 2000. Would it be fair for the police to retrospectively charge any driver that was tested between 2000 and the imposition of the new law and found to have blood alcohol level between 50mg and 80mg? Of course it wouldn't because these drivers were clearly complying with the law as it stood at the time.

The imposition of retrospective law is a fascist concept because it grants the state new powers to criminalise law abiding citizens for engaging in activities that were not criminal offences at the time. Once the concept of retrospective law is normalised, the government then has the ability to target particular groups with retrospective legislation. Let's say the government objects to the activities of a particular trade union, they simply retrospectively amend the law so that one of their previous strikes was unlawful under the new rules and hey presto, they can charge the trade union leaders and strike participants under the new rules, for activities that were completely lawful at the time. Let's say the state objects to a particular social activist organisation, they can simply retrospectively classify the group as a terrorist organisation and jail the members (in secret courts) for terrorism offences, for engaging in was lawful activity at the time.

It doesn't matter whether you believe that the particular group of unemployed people that were thrust into destitution for refusing to comply with Iain Duncan Smith's unlawful mandatory work schemes are deserving of compensation or not. The bigger issue is whether you agree with the principle of retrospectively applied laws and the dangerous precedent that would be set if Iain Duncan Smith and the DWP are allowed to get away with simply rewriting the laws of the land and applying them retrospectively.

source:- http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com.e ... kfare.html

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:25 pm
Posts: 36907
Location: Wayneistan
Nothing new I'm afraid - the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 effectively made for law being outside that of parliamentary scrutiny.

Arguably - this is when we took the step into a fascist state;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislativ ... m_Act_2006

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 2:22 pm
Posts: 14137
Location: On the move
captain cab wrote:
Nothing new I'm afraid - the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 effectively made for law being outside that of parliamentary scrutiny.

Arguably - this is when we took the step into a fascist state;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislativ ... m_Act_2006


It wasn't so much that it is the first time I've seen a consequence of this law that drew my attention to it, it was the particular story behind this piece of retrospective law that has my attention in so far as how can you break a law that hasn't yet been created :wink:

Image

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 6:24 pm
Posts: 6620
Nice eh :?: :?: :?: ...........always the same question what yer going to do about it .............mmmm nothing :twisted: :twisted:

_________________
All posts by this contributor are made in a strictly personal capacity and as such should not be associated with any organisation whatsoever!

I AM PROUD TO BE A CITIZEN NOBODY'S SUBJECT http://www.republic.org.uK

VOTE CORBYN!!

JOIN A UNION


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 2:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 2:22 pm
Posts: 14137
Location: On the move
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 2013

The Jobseekers (Back to Work) Bill

On March 19 2013 the coalition government managed to push some hastily drawn up "emergency legislation" through parliament which retroactively amended the botched rules they had drawn up to force people onto their mandatory labour schemes.

I've already explained why the introduction of retroactive legislation is totalitarian stuff, which sets dangerous precedents in a previous post (which can be seen here) so I won't go into too much detail about why such retroactive rule changes are immoral. I have also explained why the mandatory unpaid labour schemes this retroactive legislation is designed to salvage are immoral and economically illiterate in a previous post (which can be seen here).

Suffice to say that the Jobseekers (Back to Work) Bill which serves to retroactively change the law in order to protect the government's economically illiterate mandatory unpaid "workfare" schemes, is an awful bit of legislation.

Retrospectively amending the law in order to undermine a court judgement that the actions of the government were unlawful sets an appalling precedent. Whenever the government is found to have been treating citizens unlawfully, this precedent means that they would be able to simply retroactively amend the law to make their actions lawful. I find it difficult to believe that anyone that is incapable of understanding why this is a bad thing.

It is undeniable that this bill would never have been necessary in the first place were it not for Iain Duncan Smith's absurd incompetence. It is amazing that the man is still in his job after pushing through reams of unintelligible rules and the embarrassment of having his cack-handed schemes declared unlawful at the Court of Appeals. Yet, instead of being sacked, or falling on his sword, his Tory colleagues and their Lib-Dem lackeys have decided to protect him with this ridiculous piece of legislation.

The worst aspect to this whole saga is that it has been pulled off with the collusion of the Labour party too. By allowing this bill to be presented as "emergency legislation" the Labour leader Ed Miliband allowed the government to pass this new, hastily cobbled together legislation through parliament in a single day. Then when it came to the voting, the majority of Labour MPs (including the entire front bench) abstained in order to let this disgraceful bill to pass virtually unopposed.

Here's what the Labour shadow minister for employment Stephen Timms (the guy that as minister for digital Britain claimed that "IP address" stands for "Intellectual Property address"!) had to say in the House of Commons during the rush to pass this legislation. "The way forward proposed by the Bill and the programme motion is deeply unsatisfactory, but it is less bad than the alternatives, and for that reason I shall not urge my hon. Friends to oppose it." So, because Labour couldn't conceive a better alternative than this "deeply unsatisfactory" motion, they allowed it to pass unchallenged.

It is difficult to establish why they refused to oppose this "deeply unsatisfactory" motion. They've cobbled together some excuses about getting concessions from the government in return for not opposing the bill. However by colluding with the Tory led government in allowing it to glide through parliament virtually unopposed they've let Iain Duncan Smith off the hook big time. Why on earth didn't they seize the opportunity to "nail him to the wall" over his incompetence? Why didn't they let him sweat it out at the Supreme Court, instead of allowing him to write himself a retrospective "get out of jail card"? Why didn't they make the case that undermining the judgement of the courts by retroactively amending the law is an absurd abuse of process?

One can only assume that they refused to do their job as opposition because they agree with the precedent being set. They're thinking that the next time they get into power, they'd like to have Tory and Lib-Dem support when they decide to retroactively amend the law, to magically render their own unlawful actions lawful.

Either that or they are running scared of the baying right-wing press.

There were a few Labour MPs that listened to their conscience and defied the Labour leadership to vote against this disgraceful exercise in retroactive lawmaking, they are listed below (along with members of other parties that voted against). These individuals should be exempted from the criticism that the Labour leadership (and the majority of the party) thoroughly deserve, for having put Iain Duncan Smith's interests above the interests of the thousands of people he unlawfully thrust into destitution.

The only parties to cast all of their votes in opposition to Iain Duncan Smith's retroactive lawmaking were Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, the Green party and the Alliance party of Northern Ireland.

David Anderson (LAB)
Nicholas Brown (LAB)
Richard Burden (LAB)
Katy Clark (LAB)
Michael Connarty (LAB)
Jeremy Corbyn (LAB)
David Crausby (LAB)
Ian Davidson (LAB)
Jim Dobbin (LAB)
Bill Esterson (LAB)
Mary Glindon (LAB)
Fabian Hamilton (LAB)
Dai Havard (LAB)
Kelvin Hopkins (LAB)
Ian Lavery (LAB)
Mark Lazarowicz (LAB)
Fiona Mactaggart (LAB)
John McDonnell (LAB)
Jim McGovern (LAB)
Michael Meacher (LAB)
Ian Mearns (LAB)
Austin Mitchell (LAB)
Madeline Moon (LAB)
Grahame Morris (LAB)
Sandra Osborne (LAB)
Teresa Pearce (LAB)
Margaret Ritchie (LAB)
Steve Rotherham (LAB)
Barry Sheerman (LAB)
Jim Sheridan (LAB)
Dennis Skinner (LAB)
Graham Stringer (LAB)
Gerry Sutcliffe (LAB)
Joan Walley (LAB)
David Winnock (LAB)
Mike Wood (LAB)

Gregory Campbell (DUP)
Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP)
Nigel Dodds (DUP)
Mark Durkan (Plaid)
Jonathan Edwards (Plaid)
Stewart Hosie (SNP)
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid)
Naomi Long (Alliance)
Caroline Lucas (Green)
Angus MacNeil (SNP)
William McCrea (DUP)
Angus Robertson (SNP)
Jim Shannon (DUP)
Mike Weir (SNP)
Eilidh Whiteford (SNP)
Hywel Williams (SNP)
Pete Wishart (SNP)

Image

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:33 pm
Posts: 1357
Location: grangemouth
1984's Ministry of Truth? How visionary was Orwell or are they just living the prophesy?

_________________
My heart is heavy, but my consience clear,
I voted Yes, without any fear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 6:24 pm
Posts: 6620
toots wrote:
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 2013

The Jobseekers (Back to Work) Bill

On March 19 2013 the coalition government managed to push some hastily drawn up "emergency legislation" through parliament which retroactively amended the botched rules they had drawn up to force people onto their mandatory labour schemes.

I've already explained why the introduction of retroactive legislation is totalitarian stuff, which sets dangerous precedents in a previous post (which can be seen here) so I won't go into too much detail about why such retroactive rule changes are immoral. I have also explained why the mandatory unpaid labour schemes this retroactive legislation is designed to salvage are immoral and economically illiterate in a previous post (which can be seen here).

Suffice to say that the Jobseekers (Back to Work) Bill which serves to retroactively change the law in order to protect the government's economically illiterate mandatory unpaid "workfare" schemes, is an awful bit of legislation.

Retrospectively amending the law in order to undermine a court judgement that the actions of the government were unlawful sets an appalling precedent. Whenever the government is found to have been treating citizens unlawfully, this precedent means that they would be able to simply retroactively amend the law to make their actions lawful. I find it difficult to believe that anyone that is incapable of understanding why this is a bad thing.

It is undeniable that this bill would never have been necessary in the first place were it not for Iain Duncan Smith's absurd incompetence. It is amazing that the man is still in his job after pushing through reams of unintelligible rules and the embarrassment of having his cack-handed schemes declared unlawful at the Court of Appeals. Yet, instead of being sacked, or falling on his sword, his Tory colleagues and their Lib-Dem lackeys have decided to protect him with this ridiculous piece of legislation.

The worst aspect to this whole saga is that it has been pulled off with the collusion of the Labour party too. By allowing this bill to be presented as "emergency legislation" the Labour leader Ed Miliband allowed the government to pass this new, hastily cobbled together legislation through parliament in a single day. Then when it came to the voting, the majority of Labour MPs (including the entire front bench) abstained in order to let this disgraceful bill to pass virtually unopposed.

Here's what the Labour shadow minister for employment Stephen Timms (the guy that as minister for digital Britain claimed that "IP address" stands for "Intellectual Property address"!) had to say in the House of Commons during the rush to pass this legislation. "The way forward proposed by the Bill and the programme motion is deeply unsatisfactory, but it is less bad than the alternatives, and for that reason I shall not urge my hon. Friends to oppose it." So, because Labour couldn't conceive a better alternative than this "deeply unsatisfactory" motion, they allowed it to pass unchallenged.

It is difficult to establish why they refused to oppose this "deeply unsatisfactory" motion. They've cobbled together some excuses about getting concessions from the government in return for not opposing the bill. However by colluding with the Tory led government in allowing it to glide through parliament virtually unopposed they've let Iain Duncan Smith off the hook big time. Why on earth didn't they seize the opportunity to "nail him to the wall" over his incompetence? Why didn't they let him sweat it out at the Supreme Court, instead of allowing him to write himself a retrospective "get out of jail card"? Why didn't they make the case that undermining the judgement of the courts by retroactively amending the law is an absurd abuse of process?

One can only assume that they refused to do their job as opposition because they agree with the precedent being set. They're thinking that the next time they get into power, they'd like to have Tory and Lib-Dem support when they decide to retroactively amend the law, to magically render their own unlawful actions lawful.

Either that or they are running scared of the baying right-wing press.

There were a few Labour MPs that listened to their conscience and defied the Labour leadership to vote against this disgraceful exercise in retroactive lawmaking, they are listed below (along with members of other parties that voted against). These individuals should be exempted from the criticism that the Labour leadership (and the majority of the party) thoroughly deserve, for having put Iain Duncan Smith's interests above the interests of the thousands of people he unlawfully thrust into destitution.

The only parties to cast all of their votes in opposition to Iain Duncan Smith's retroactive lawmaking were Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, the Green party and the Alliance party of Northern Ireland.

David Anderson (LAB)
Nicholas Brown (LAB)
Richard Burden (LAB)
Katy Clark (LAB)
Michael Connarty (LAB)
Jeremy Corbyn (LAB)
David Crausby (LAB)
Ian Davidson (LAB)
Jim Dobbin (LAB)
Bill Esterson (LAB)
Mary Glindon (LAB)
Fabian Hamilton (LAB)
Dai Havard (LAB)
Kelvin Hopkins (LAB)
Ian Lavery (LAB)
Mark Lazarowicz (LAB)
Fiona Mactaggart (LAB)
John McDonnell (LAB)
Jim McGovern (LAB)
Michael Meacher (LAB)
Ian Mearns (LAB)
Austin Mitchell (LAB)
Madeline Moon (LAB)
Grahame Morris (LAB)
Sandra Osborne (LAB)
Teresa Pearce (LAB)
Margaret Ritchie (LAB)
Steve Rotherham (LAB)
Barry Sheerman (LAB)
Jim Sheridan (LAB)
Dennis Skinner (LAB)
Graham Stringer (LAB)
Gerry Sutcliffe (LAB)
Joan Walley (LAB)
David Winnock (LAB)
Mike Wood (LAB)

Gregory Campbell (DUP)
Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP)
Nigel Dodds (DUP)
Mark Durkan (Plaid)
Jonathan Edwards (Plaid)
Stewart Hosie (SNP)
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid)
Naomi Long (Alliance)
Caroline Lucas (Green)
Angus MacNeil (SNP)
William McCrea (DUP)
Angus Robertson (SNP)
Jim Shannon (DUP)
Mike Weir (SNP)
Eilidh Whiteford (SNP)
Hywel Williams (SNP)
Pete Wishart (SNP)

Image


Milibland has now got a major split within his ranks, the list above is the good guys the rest SCUM :evil: :evil:

_________________
All posts by this contributor are made in a strictly personal capacity and as such should not be associated with any organisation whatsoever!

I AM PROUD TO BE A CITIZEN NOBODY'S SUBJECT http://www.republic.org.uK

VOTE CORBYN!!

JOIN A UNION


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:25 pm
Posts: 36907
Location: Wayneistan
Image

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 2:22 pm
Posts: 14137
Location: On the move
captain cab wrote:
Image


=D> =D> =D> ain't that the truth, that said we got what we deserved :shock:

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:25 pm
Posts: 36907
Location: Wayneistan
Was looking for this one;

Image

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group