25 May 10, 9:45 PM
spirifer
UK, 6 yrs
 |
LittleMissEvil wrote:
spirifer wrote:
Well said, emark. I do wish people who write about prisons would actually go and visit them regularly, to discover for themselves what the reality of prison is. IMNSHO prison should be about rehabilitation and thereby reducing re-offending, not treating prisoners like shit.
It's far too easy to cut and paste others' writings (lecture notes?!) and present them as your own; far more difficult to set down your own opinions and arguments.
|
The aim of prisons I believe should be as a punishment for their crimes. I would be all for the total restriction of all bar their basic right whilst in prison. As why should someone who has violated the rights of others have theirs protected?
Should the person who breaks in to you're house and steals you're property be sent to prison with the only restriction upon them being they get locked in cell at night?
Should the person who kills another human, be given the ability to have 3 meals a day whilst a homeless person goes hungry?
Should a person who commit fraud, and steals money from people under false pretences be given a bed and shelter whilst those who he stole off have to make sacrifices?
Now you can argue that they have lost their freedom, in that they can't go where they want to go when they want to. But personally I don't think that goes far enough, I personally think anything that would be considered as a luxury such as TV, Radio, Computers, should be taken out of prisons. Give them three meals a day, but make them work to earn them, why should a prisoner not work 8-9 hours a day when in prison? People not in prison have to work to survive so why should prisoners be any different?
If prisons were hard places where people were made to pay their debt to society then I am sure more people would think twice before committing a crime.
|
Thus writes someone who knows nothing about the conditions in prison. I have no doubt that most prisoners would prefer having something to occupy themselves with, rather than being locked in a cell 22 hours a day at weekends. Ah semen. What is it about that ridiculous white secretion that pulls down the corners of an Englishman's mouth?
The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation - Pierre Trudeau
A denizen of a right little, tight little island.
|
25 May 10, 11:00 PM
Aumentou
UK(S), 2 yrs
|
LittleMissEvil wrote:
As a result of this it imposed an obligation upon her that she wasn't happy with as it conflicted with her personal beliefs. Surely you can see that this is where the problem is, not in what she thought but in the fact that she was told her views and beliefs were irrelevant and if she didn't do what was now expected of her then she would be sacked. |
Job description changed slightly. Employee decided they did not wish to do job as role had now altered slightly. Employer told them their old job no longer existed. Employee claimed this was discrimination.
If my employer told me tomorrow that we were shifting from a windows-based computer system to an apple system, and I refused to do it because I believed apple are more evil than microsoft*, then when they inevitably fired me for not doing my job would you support my claim that this was discrimination on moral/religious grounds?
*this is a hypothetical, I do not believe this.
Citrus fruit hybridising - the original MAD SCIENCE!
|
26 May 10, 9:23 AM
Tinsel_Seeker
2 yrs
 |
The comments here about Theresa's anti gay bent (sorry), have been rife, but she made a rather sincere and surprisingly clear statement about this on Question Time the other week. She stated clearly, that she had changed her mind. There was no hiding from the issue, no woolliness as regards previous motives, just a clear statement that her opinions had changed.
I'm absolutely no supporter of the Conservative party and was particularly unhappy the morning after the election, however, on this issue, Theresa May made a clear and hopefully sincere statement. I think it's important to acknowledge this.
Dimswitch3 wrote:
I notice the new Home Sec, Theresa May has something of an anti gay agenda. But overall I don't think stamping on individual liberties New Labour style will be high on the list of coalition policies.
|
Friendship is like pishing your pants, everyone can see it, but only you can feel the true warmth.'
|
4 Jun 10, 12:51 AM
doulos
UK(SW), 7 yrs
|
Purvection wrote:
doulos wrote:
sirguym wrote:
doulos wrote:
The right to force people to employ you is not a civil liberties issue.
|
Though the right to 'not be sacked' for something that should not be any concern of your employer to be judgemental about, quite possibly is.
|
Not so sure. If the employer violates obligations they have voluntarily accepted, then it it certainly a problem, but one best met through the due enforcement of contract law rather than civil rights legislation.
|
Hmmm, it'd be employment law actually. An employer may well violate their legal obligations but even if you have an employment contract the matter would most probably be dealt with at an employment tribunal which specialises in the appropriate law, including contracts.
And just to nitpick,cos it's early and I haven't had coffee yet, this applies whether an employer "voluntarily" accepts obligations or not. For example, workers have the right to belong to a trade union. Your boss may not like it or accept it voluntarily but they certainly can't fire you for joining one otherwise they'll be in the dock at the employment tribunal...
|
Well that IS a civil rights issue. Employers should not be forced to accept employees on any terms that they do not voluntarily agree to. An awful lot of employment law violates the civil right to contract freely. "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
H. L. Mencken
|
4 Jun 10, 12:57 AM
doulos
UK(SW), 7 yrs
|
sirguym wrote:
My point is that as I understand it, under the Human Rights Act we have, or should have, the right to do just about what we want in our private lives, and so long as we harm nobody in doing so.
Employers may not like it that we take part in BDSM, same-gender sex-play, swinging, modelling nude, etc.
But they should not be able to forbid us from doing so by the back door of "bringing an employer into disrepute" or such other vague formulations.
It is none of their business, and an infringement of our autonomy to do so, unless they can actually prove substantial and quantifiable cost to their business.
An employment Tribunal is too late, employers have to realise that violation of others' freedom is something they cannot do without a damn good and watertight case that they are able and willing to argue in a criminal court, as is the case with other forms of discrimination.
|
I think that something like "bringing an employer into disrepute" is too ambiguous and arbitrary a term in an employment contract, and so ought to be subject to legal challenge.
However, I believe that someone should be able to set any specific conditions on the terms of employment they want, including personal characteristics, or whatever private activities employers are allowed to engage in. Of course, they would be quite stupid to do so (so, in general they won't). For example, I would have no problem with a white nationalist pub owner refusing to employ ethnic minorities. And a Muslim charity shouldn't have to employ a homosexual if they don't want to, regardless of what the job entails.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
H. L. Mencken
Edited 4 Jun 10, 5:14 AM by doulos
|
