Government welcomes landmark law which will improve the safety of tenants READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-welcomes-landmark-law-which-will-improve-the-safety-of-tenants Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/34/contents/enacted/data.htm

JHi, and thanks to all those who contributed to my other thread in respect of ESA, the help has been greatly appreciated and I would appreciate any same kind advice on my PIP Tribunal was has now been listed and will proceed in a few weeks time. My initial reason for the Appeal has been based on the time it took the assessment, (approximately 14 minutes) and this was for two conditions, physical because I have a heart condition and for my mental problems which are secondary to the heart condition, PTSD, anxiety and depression. During the examination, the assessor just repeated the same questions that l had provided in the questionnaire and no physical examination was carried out, giving the time it took as opposed to other assessments that I have taking , it was as if the decision was already made before I walked in there, the assessor was and in theory just going through the bare minimal motions which I feel is unfair and not to mention the fabricated report which if true would have taking the assessor about 45 minutes to an hour to conclude what he concluded which was a complete pack of lies in all honesty, my wife who cares for me was at this assessment. I feel and this is purely based on previous assessments and not just an assumption that I was denied the right to a full and proper assessment which every claimant should have any rights too, have I got grounds?, thanks

Specifically relating to personal correspondence. Work program provider wants me to bring a list of agencies I am registered with along with phone numbers and ring them while they listen and or record the conversation. Am I right that without my permission that is an unreasonable request and I can tell them to do one ?

Hello good people I hope this is the right thread to post this query... I need assistance as to how to go about filing an appeal against the ET judgment i lost for ''unlawful dismissal''... ..This is an NHS matter ..the judge was bias. ..her written judgement even shows her helping the other side to clarify their case.. My question is... . in a situation where it can be easily be shown and proven that the accusations which led my suspension and later dismissal was NOT properly investigated ..can a judge still get away with using points of law like (Post Office v Foley and also HSBC v Madden (Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones BHS v Burchell case, As reasons for ruling against me?.. .I was under suspension for 6 months and virtually NO investigations was carried out. ..for exp..the main Charge nurse who leveled the accusation which led to my suspension was not questioned. .in fact she refused to give further statements. ..persons whom i identified as being involved in the situation were not questioned for 4months. ..it was only AFTER the appeal which was 7 months later that statements were sought from these people. ...and one of them claimed he was in Australia when i saw on FB that he still living in the UK... . I brought these facts up throughout the whole process ... and even in court and judge noted this. ..my Solicitor didn't really do much... there is so much more i can go into. .but this ET judge's decision and reasoning is the most ridiculous i have ever read... I was fired under capability rule... I dont know how to make heads or tails on this matter as it has been going on for a year. ..i do not want to waste money on consulting a barrister if i am going to get screwed around like my current solicitor did... thank you.. This is my first time on here and i will clarify if need be for anyone who can help.. .I am at a loss and i am willing to take this case far as i can.. .as i did nothing wrong ..i was ganged up on an bullied on the job. .then set up... I am from America and i am not familiar with UK employment laws... If need be.. .i can email the Judges decisions to anyone who wants to read..

The wealthiest 62 people have as much wealth as that of half the worlds population combined: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/richest-62-billionaires-wealthy-half-world-population-combined

UK ruling party’s plan to scrap the Human Rights Act has sparked harsh criticism from the UN arguing that the act would be disastrous for victims of abuses and ruin the UK’s commendable record. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein said the threat by the UK’s Conservative government to replace the act with a British Bill of Rights would leave many people unable to remedy the abuses they suffer. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCQQFjAAahUKEwjcgPfEo8XIAhWJXRoKHZYlAHc&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Flaw%2F2015%2Foct%2F12%2Fun-official-warns-against-uk-plans-scrap-human-rights-act&usg=AFQjCNHLFJNSZcX3Iq9RMC9HDnAPoPybRg http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/1...-UN-criticism-

"The national interest must come ahead of human rights" David Cameron. But is not human rights central to our national interest? Every year the British Government sell £4 billion in arms to one of the worlds worst human rights abusers, Saudi Arabia. Currently a 17 year old Saudi male faces public beheading followed by crucifixion because he has been found guilty of being involved in sedition in taking part in a human rights riot. David Cameron's Government cut a secret deal with Saudi Arabia last month to be elected onto the United Nations 'Human Rights Council'. Saudi Arabia publicly beheaded over 60 of it's own citizens last year year, flogging, up to 1000 lashes at a time, is common. Woman under penalty of imprisonment are not allowed to drive. The justification for David Cameron in turning a blind eye to these and other human rights abuses is 'We share valuable intelligence with them of people who want to harm both regimes'. As well as Saudi Arabia Britain has just completed trade deals with one of the most prolific Human Rights Abusers. That being China. An example wil be live organ donation/ harvesting from their prison population. ( Falun Gong) The response from the Chinese Government states that the prisoners agree to it. And the UK Government accepts that response What can be more harmful to our reputation on human rights when we ignore them in the name of national security that ultimately undermines our commitment to uphold human rights? No wonder the Tories are so keen to try and dump the European Convention of Human Rights as they have no respect of them. The irony in all of this is that it was a Tory who was instrumental in conceiving the ECHR That being Winston Churchil

Can anyone tell me what the law is on planning application time limits are? Do the council have to place a notice on the building that is the subject of the planning application and if so do they have to allow a certain amount of time between posting the notice and actually making a planning decision? Thanks in advance.

I can never understand why people stress about some prisoners being able to vote. If we want them to be rehabilitated, then why not give them the right to vote towards the end of their sentence. The ECHR have only said some prisoners should be able to vote and this is being used by some to justify the UK withdrawing from ECHR. Does not make any sense to me. We have enough problems getting people to vote !

That would leave us with Belarus and Kazakhstan as the only European countries who haven't signed up for human rights. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/uk-scraps-human-rights-act-4350443#ixzz3EtmaLEIP Wishful thinking I think.

Hello A woman took my husband to the small claims court for a cheque that she had made payable to me. At the second hearing the judge or sheriff (I'm not really sure what they are called) threw the case out as the case should have been brought against me. He then went on to explain to the woman that she should take a small claims out against me as it was me that she wrote the cheque out to. He then said it was me that was liable for the cheque, (even though I was acting as an agent for this cheque) and that if the woman takes out a small claims against me he would probably make a judgment in her favor. What I want to know is have my human rights been violated in this case, as the judge/sheriff has not afforded me the chance to put my case across and would not let me explain about the cheque and told this woman to take a claim out against me and she will probably win. I am now receiving abusive letters from this woman stating that as the judge/sheriff said it was me that was liable, she wants her money back. Any thoughts or help would be appreciated.

The human resources woman that is dealing with my disciplinary case stated to my union rep, that i would be better off resigning as it is not looking good for me, this was done in an open room with other people about. should she have the right to be judge and jury and is there anything i can do about it. I have raised a formal grievance (i had a signed statement off my rep) but as my disciplinary is tomorrow i think its gonna get swept under the carpet. ANY ADVICE?

SOURCE: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/news/2013/june/commission-welcomes-supreme-court-ruling-on-armed-forces-and-human-rights-protection/ 19 June 2013 In a landmark judgment today (Wednesday 19 June) the Supreme Court ruled that British soldiers killed while serving in Iraq were still under UK jurisdiction and so were entitled to human rights protection to the extent that is reasonable and does not interfere with the demands of active service. Serving in the armed forces inevitably involves risks and dangers which our servicemen and women take on willingly. This ruling will extend the same protections of their rights to members of the armed forces on operations abroad which already exist when they are in the UK or an overseas base. So for example, if their equipment is proven to be faulty then they should be protected from that at home and abroad. Simply being in active service should not mean our armed forces lose all protections of their rights. It will be for the courts to determine whether there were human rights violations or negligence in particular cases. However, the commission believes that the Supreme Court’s ruling provides a reasonable balance between the operational needs of our armed forces and the rights of those serving in our armed forces to be protected in the same way as we expect them to protect the rights of civilians abroad. The Court unanimously accepted the Equality and Human Rights Commission submission that members of the armed forces are under the authority and control of the state and should be subject to the obligations and benefits imposed by the European Convention on Human Rights wherever they are in the world. The case at the Supreme Court involved the mother of Private Phillip Hewett and other families against the MOD. Their relatives were all soldiers killed in action and are seeking to bring claims of negligence and breaches of the duty to protect life against the Ministry. However, their ability to do this rested on the Court finding that Article 1 of the European Convention, which provides that rights and freedoms should be available to all within the State’s jurisdiction, reasonably applied to the men whilst in Iraq. The Court found that it did meaning that their cases can proceed to trial. Lord Hope, Court Deputy President said: “The extra-territorial obligation of the contracting state is to ensure the observance of the rights and freedoms that are relevant to the individual who is under its agents’ authority and control, and it does not need to be more than that.” This case is one of several the Commission has intervened in as an expert third party to ensure human rights protections cover UK armed forces abroad to the extent that it is reasonable to impose such a duty on the state. The Commission made no submissions in relation to the families’ other claims. Commission deputy director, legal, Wendy Hewitt said: The Supreme Court’s ruling means that human rights protections have been levelled up so that we are no longer expecting our armed forces to fully respect the rights of civilians abroad while not being properly protected themselves. “From this basic principle it is now up to the courts to decide how this should apply in practice. “This is not about interfering with the way military decisions are made in the field but how everyone serving in the armed forces is given the protections they deserve.”

http://news.uk.msn.com//blog/trending-blogpost.aspx?post=e84ba8c5-7672-4fef-a927-cafce819d324&_nwpt=1 If i read that article right , even tho i dont usually quote MSN, we cant be stopped from internet use lol. I apologise if this is posted in the wrong subforum.