SIGN UP

Next Stop Echr?

Avatar Image
ToraToraTora | 12:40 Tue 30th Jul 2013 | News
16 Answers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23503095
Who's paying for this legal action? As if I didn't know!

Answers

1 to 16 of 16rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I would think the next stop is the UK Supreme court

This is a human rights case and the Human Rights Act means that the Supreme court hears and judges that.

If we didn't have the Human Rights act then it would be the EHCR

That is after all the point of the act to stop everybody having to trot over to the mainland every time the High Court finds against a plaintif
Question Author
Yes but I'm surprised they have the money for all this legal action.
Democracy in process before our eyes.

If disabled families are not deserving of legal support, I don't know who is?
I'm sure Shelter are providing a wodge as well.
"Trot over to the mainland". No Jake we are not European. Britain is the mainland..

And no doubt it will end up in the ECHR eventually.

I looked at the cases on the BBC site. Only case 4 seems at all plausable, case 2 possibly, case 1 does not seem to have anything to do with bedroom tax and case 3 is a joke.

If that is the best they have then perhaps all we need os some common sense being injected by local councils, which I thought they had the power to exercise?

Anyone know whether they are Tory or labour councils involved?

A key aspect of justice is to provide equal access to the law

If you have no legal aid you have a situation where only rich people can fight for their rights.

You can pass all the laws you like but unless people can afford to challenge decisions then there is no justice for people

Do you have a better solution to provide access to the law?

Or do you think poor people should just shut up whinging if they can't afford lawyers?

Because I can tell you where that ends up and it's rather bloody!
Thought you'd like that YMB

Fog in the channel ; Continent cut off!

http://freeglot.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/fog-in-channel-continent-cut-off/
Depends how the legal aid is administered.

If the cases are so deserving why aren't a few right-on lawyers doing it pro bono, or are they?

The problem is that greedy lawyers (Mrs Blair et al) jump on any band wagon, line their pockets and try to make a name for themselves on the back of the tax payers. There have been many examples of this and it needs to be controlled so those that really need it can access legal representation. Or that too will end up bloody.

Thanks Jake :-)
I was going to argue a point about 1 - but I think you're right youngmafbog. I think it is an attempt to illustrate the problems of getting people into bigger homes when needed, and how it might be impossible to afford it with the cuts. I can't see why they would be subject to them if they moved into a 3-bed? Or is this because it's in London and the rate doesn't match?

I know people who have lived in a similar predicament as number 2 - and it's not a "possibly" it's a "definitely". The size of the bed and equipment gets larger as the problems get worse. If they live in a "normal" sized house then I would expect them to swap her into the bigger room at some point!

Not that we're really in a position to make individual calls on this stuff!

I would like to know more about 3 however. It's easy to dismiss mental issues as "not real" (hey, after all, it's all in your head!) but it's interesting to see there was an extra space recommended for this particular trauma?
Question Author
I was under the impression that legal aid was available for certain things. I didn't think it was available for all and sundry to challange validly passed legislation that they don't like. So can I get legal aid to challenge the council's decision to paint yellow lines outside my house?
"So can I get legal aid to challenge the council's decision to paint yellow lines outside my house?"

No idea - but if you were in a wheelchair and outside your home is the only parking within a mile you'd probably have a good shot!

Shelter is mentioned in the article, so they're likely to be stumping up some cash.
// validly passed legislation //

Has a habit of being illegal because politicians are stupid and only know dogma.
There is a fundamental question to be addressed with your contention, Gromit.

In my view, in the UK “validly passed legislation” is that which goes through the due process of both Houses of Parliament and subsequently receives the Sovereign’s assent. Such legislation should not be deemed “illegal” by any UK court and certainly not by any body outside the UK. The fact that some people may not like the legislation or that individual aspects of it impact upon some people to a greater degree than others is immaterial. In short, Parliament should be sovereign.

Only since the growth of Human Rights legislation has the ability to challenge laws on the basis of “non-compatibility” been possible. It is outrageous, it destroys the sovereignty of Parliament and makes the UK (and indeed most of Europe who subscribe to such nonsense) a laughing stock.
Can't agree New Judge. This was a perfectly OK challenge from some very disabled people, who would seem to have a genuine concern. I thought the Judges comments highly significant :::

"But campaigners said they welcomed criticism from the judges that the government had failed to legislate to ensure that families with children who are unable to share bedrooms because of their disabilities should not have their housing benefit cut"

This has some way to go before the fat lady sings.
Quite so, mikey. But leaving aside the details, the issue is: "who are the legislators?"

My view it is elected politicians not unelected judges. Parliament provides the law, judges ensure it is enacted and interpret it where necessary. There have been countless examples recently where the will of Parliament has been overridden by judges. Many examples of properly enacted legislation being dismissed as “illegal” by either the UK’s Supreme Court or the ECHR.

In this particular case Parliament has determined how taxpayers' money will be spent - one of the key responsibilities of the Westminster forum. To rule such a decsion as "illegal" is absurd.Far from being democratic it is about as undemocratic as it can get to nullify the will of a Parliament made up of the people’s representatives. This conflict will forever be present so long as the 1998 Human Rights Act remains in force and the UK is party to the ECHR.

1 to 16 of 16rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Next Stop Echr?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.