Human rights or wrongs?

On March 20, 2012, in Human Rights, by admin
0

Human rights or wrongs?

The High Court has just ruled that part of the legislation intended to prevent people convicted or cautioned for certain crimes from working with children or vulnerable adults breaches human rights law. Will this decision protect perpetrators of offences over those vulnerable individuals whose protection The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 seeks?

The Act was introduced after the Soham murders and was designed to protect children and vulnerable adults by preventing those posing a known risk from gaining access to them through their work. There was no real dispute that the previous system had to be reviewed.  Formerly there were two barring lists relating to children, List 99 and the Protection of Children Act (POCA) list.  Furthermore, the CRB check only enabled the employer to gain knowledge of a person at the time of the application.

The main aims of the vetting and barring scheme are as follows:

(i) unsuitable individuals should be barred from working with children (or vulnerable adults);

(ii) employers should be able to check that a person is not barred from working with children (or vulnerable adults);

(iii) suitability checks should be an ongoing assessment of suitability to identify those who transgress following an initial suitability check.

The Act defines two types of activity relating to children or vulnerable adults, ‘regulated activity’ and ‘controlled activity’.

 Regulated activity covers the situations where a person has direct contact with the children or vulnerable adults, for example, teaching, social work, healthcare, counseling, guidance, and driving school buses. ‘Controlled activity’ is activity that, although it gives some opportunity for contact with children or vulnerable adults, does not fall within the definition of regulated activity.

An individual who wishes to work with children or vulnerable adults must apply for a check following the procedure required by the Act.  Once a person applies for a check, information is collated about him. While this is in progress, the investigator may receive information from a variety of sources. The decision as to barring status will be made and communicated to the individual, and where appropriate, to his employer. A decision to bar can only be reviewed after a certain period of time.

The Act creates several offences.  For example, offences are committed by an individual who seeks or engages in regulated activity with children or vulnerable adults when either he is barred, or not subject to monitoring (ie he has not applied for a check). The system of automatically banning those convicted for or who admit certain crimes from working with children and vulnerable adults without allowing them to make representations breached their rights to a fair trial.

Earlier this year, complaints about the complexity of the system and bureaucratic problems had caused the Government to put the registration scheme on hold while to considered further action.  Now the High Court has ruled that the vetting and barring scheme may breach human rights.

In its recent judgment in the case of The Royal College of Nursing & Ors R v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor, the High Court said that the automatic banning from working with children and vulnerable adults of people convicted for, or admitting, certain crimes without allowing them to make representations breached their rights to a fair trial.

In this case the claimants were nurses. Two of them were the subject of police cautions for leaving their children at home unsupervised which they had accepted;  one claimant had been convicted of giving a child an unauthorised kiss; the was the subject of a disciplinary investigation into all allegation of drunkenness at work.

The first three had all been placed automatically on the barred list after accepting their cautions or being convicted.  After challenges had been made, their status was changed and their names removed from the barred lists, but only after months of being unable to work.

The claimants brought a successful claim saying that the vetting and barring scheme is contrary to Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 8 (right to private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.  The scheme places a duty on the Independent Safeguarding Authority to automatically place individuals who have been convicted or cautioned for a wide range of offences on the barred lists.  Such individuals do not have the right to make representations before their names are listed.

In its defence, the Secretary of State argued that the potential consequences of not barring perpetrators of certain offences could lead to serious abuse.

Rejecting the defence’s argument, the court said that  the lengthy delay between the offences being reported and the claimants’ names appearing on the barred lists, suggested the scheme was not as fast or effective as it envisaged. Most importantly, the particular claimants in this case, who had been convicted of relatively minor offences, were the type of people who would suffer most from the automatic barring measures.

It will be interesting to see how this issue of balancing the right of vulnerable persons to be protected, against the rights of this caught in the vetting and barring legislation is tackled and we will await developments with interest.

Russell HR Consulting provides expert knowledge in the practical application of employment law as well as providing employment law training and HR support services. For more information, visit our website at www.russellhrconsulting.co.uk or call a member of the team on 0845 644 8955.

Russell HR Consulting offers HR services to businesses nationwide, including Buckinghamshire (covering Aylesbury, High Wycombe, Milton Keynes, Bedford, Banbury, Northampton, Towcester and surrounding areas), Nottinghamshire (covering Chesterfield, Mansfield, Nottingham, Sheffield, Worksop and surrounding areas) and Hampshire (covering Aldershot, Basingstoke, Reading, Farnborough, Fareham, Portsmouth, Southampton and surrounding areas).

Tagged with: • •
 

European Court of Human Rights Upholds the Tenant’s Basic Human Right to Install a Satellite Dish

On September 14, 2011, in Human Rights, by admin
0

European Court of Human Rights Upholds the Tenant’s Basic Human Right to Install a Satellite Dish

Article by Dorothy Mansfield

Could you imagine satellite dishes in the heart of our areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty? On the Colleges in Oxford or paths within Westminster, Kensington along with Chelsea? Grade I listed buildings having satellite dishes around them? Conservation areas where councils have gone to great lengths to preserve the character of the area full of satellite dishes? Imagine no more this might be about to be a reality! Using a satellite dish has been pronounced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to be a basic human right. Therefore any local authority, or indeed property owner blocking a property owner or tenant from putting in a satellite dish will be breaching that persons human rights and as such would be guilty of breaching the Human Rights Act 1998.

The EHRC has issued “Human Rights at Home” guidance based on a recent case heard in the European Court of Human Rights. The case concerned a case in Sweden in which two tenants installed a satellite dish in breach of the terms of their tenancy. The Landlord evicted them following a dispute over the dish; The Landlord had ordered the removing of the satellite dish and they had refused.

The judges at the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swedish government has failed in the ‘positive obligations’ to protect the tenants’ right to receive information. It was found that satellite dishes come under the remit of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights:

Article 10: Freedom of expression- Everyone has the the basic right to hold and communicate beliefs freely, even if they’re unpopular. This includes expression through speaking in public and through demonstrations plus leaflets, newspapers or on the on the web. Individuals have the right to obtain opinions andinformation.

At the moment, in the UK you have the statutory right to erect your satellite broadband or even satellite TV dish on your house providing that:-

1. You own it 2. Your house isn’t positioned in a “designated area” (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty), within National Parks such as the Broads, within conservation areas or World Heritage sites). 3. There aren’t any restrictive covenants in the deeds or lease of the property that expressly prevent satellite antennas. Satellite dishes commonly are considered ‘Permitted Development’ and therefore don’t require planning consent in areas that aren’t within a conservation area, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or World Heritage site.

The new “Human Rights at Home” direction has apparently angered Ministers who believe it’s an illogical restriction on Government attempts to protect conservation area that would be blighted by the big metal dishes.Grant Shapps, the housing minister, explained that the Human Rights Act threatened to drive “a horse and cart through planning laws and also tenancy agreements”.

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • •
 

This site talks about Transportation Human Rights Violation

On August 20, 2011, in Human Rights, by admin
0

This site talks about Transportation Human Rights Violation

Article by MariaKnowles

Well, it’s the transportation human rights violation has been considered as the prime aspect for all the US cities through which the violation of human rights has been prevented to a great extent. Transportation human rights violation is also helping the cab drivers to protect their human rights with the best possible mean. If such things will not exist, then the cab drivers in this part of the world may suffer from several unwanted issues. They may have to work like slaves for several hours and more problems will be assigned for their lifestyle. So, knowing the transportation human rights violation and the rules to prevent it can really help you a lot.

At 1948 United Nations issued Universal Declaration of the Human Rights. Whereas United Nations wasn’t then, and nor is it now, the democratic institution all the people in world have the equal say, and it is nonetheless the interesting document. The freedom of movement is the human right. Thus it should be the human right also for those people who can’t afford cars (it is most of the people in world, however not many people in US), and select not to use for the socio environmental reasons. And every one is equal before law, and that includes the cyclist & motorist who actually end up in the court over the collision, without any regard to color, race, creed, sexual orientation, gender, and preferred mode of the transportation that are available.

Taxi Medallion is a Human Right and a Labor Right – It is Your Right Not Privilege!

You should remember that Taxi Medallion is a human right and a labor right but it is not a privilege or favor at all. Well, you should also keep in mind that medallion is not a piece of equipment or industrial goods but it is the name of the permit of taxi cabs as well as the name for the registration of taxi cabs. It is a human right as well as labor right to own a taxi cab medallion. And such right mainly invented foe taxi driver not the owner. It is the best system to guarantee a strong public transportation system. Know more about your rights by visiting myaatc.org

These days, it is has been evolved & has became the great use to billions of the people, families, companies, businesses all across the world. With its plenty of uses, so come horrendous downfall to take benefit for people who are weak & unable to fight to gain what they actually deserve and at least entitled as they render these services essential that they carry on to give on the everyday basis. There are many wrong happening in society today within taxi industry; and lots of people are doing best to enforce the Cab Drivers Rights & by making the Taxi Association & to tell congress of course government about many practices, which showcase the Taxi Cab Driver Discrimination now to end n for all.

Taxi Cab Self Employ Violation – These Issues should be Addressed!

As far as the taxi cab self employ violation is concerned, in the US you can really find several details about this topic online. Well, there are a few things that you must know about taxi cab self-employed violation. In the US cities most of the taxi cab drivers and self employed and they are not the sub contractors. However, it’s the monopoly of government as well as companies that is forcing these drivers to lease the medallions required for driving taxies the US cities. They are acquiring such medallions from the taxi cab companies or from the owners. In order to know more about the taxi cab self-employed violation, you can now visit myaatc.org.

Those are the professions who are here serving people who need them on the daily basis; however now, there companies & those with the money that take benefit of situation & make this impossible for Taxi Cab driver to actually enjoy rewards of their efforts.

Taxi cab drivers aren’t sub contractors and are self-employed. Due to government & company Monopolies, they need to lease the taxi cab medallions from the taxi cab companies and medallion owners to serve public. They need to pay the additional money in case, they need dispatching the services & insurance from companies. In case, they are medallion owner, then can join the companies to get the low cost of insurance, dispatching the services and being part of the larger team. They do not need to pay for services from institutions, in case, feel they aren’t important.

Tagged with: • • • • • • •
 
« Previous Entries