DBS ( formerly CRB ) . New extended checks.

[ahinton]

Othe European Convention on Human Rights ( drafted by the UK in 1948 and to which every country in Europe except Belarus is a signatory )and the European Union ( which is in Brussels ) are two entirely different entities.

Indeed so; ECHR comes under the Council of Europe and is not, strictly speaking, a "law" as such (each EU member state having its own Human Rights legislation, albeit broadly in line with the provisions of ECHR) whereas European Union legislation comes under the European Commission from which Council of Europe is entirely separate. Incidentally, UK is a signatory not only to EHCR but also to the Universal Declaration of Hman Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), each of which was drafted by United Nations (so are signed up to by the governments of many nations, not just those of EU member states); there are many broad similarities between UK's Human Rights Act 1998 and each of the other three.

[Beef Oven!]

Oh dear what a true member of UKIP you are - getting your facts entirely wrong - the European Convention on Human Rights ( drafted by the UK in 1948 and to which every country in Europe except Belarus is a signatory )and the European Union ( which is in Brussels ) are two entirely different entities.

The bureaucrats of The Council Of Europe and its European Convention On Human Rights are based in Brussels (Belarus isn't in Europe, btw).

If you feel that the latest UK laws are in breach of the European Convention On Human Rights (article 8, you say?), it is clear that those bureaucrats in Brussels are the overseers of British law, nowadays, as I said.

My facts are entirely correct.

And don't bring the UKIP into the discussion, particularly in the ad-hominem way that you did.

[Beef Oven!]

Oh dear what a true member of UKIP you are - getting your facts entirely wrong - the European Convention on Human Rights ( drafted by the UK in 1948 and to which every country in Europe except Belarus is a signatory )and the European Union ( which is in Brussels ) are two entirely different entities.

He knows that but likes to pretend that the are the same

The bureaucrats of The Council Of Europe and its European Convention On Human Rights are based in Brussels. As our learned friend tells us, our UK laws could be in breach of article 8. So you see, our UK laws are overseen by perfidious bureaucrats in Brussels, these days. It seems we all agree on that.

Good grief, when I have a music fuddy-duddy (meant affectionately) and Can-fan ganging up on me, I need to look out

[Dave2002]

Would Jeremy C be disqualified? Or anyone who knows him, or works with him, or has any form of association?

[Pabmusic]

Of course, those perfidious bureaucrats in Brussels are the over-seers of British law, nowadays...

The bureaucrats of The Council Of Europe and its European Convention On Human Rights are based in Brussels. As our learned friend tells us, our UK laws could be in breach of article 8. So you see, our UK laws are overseen by perfidious bureaucrats in Brussels, these days. It seems we all agree on that...

Well, I don't. The Council of Europe and ECHR are based in Strasbourg. Maybe you never read any of the lengthy posts I wrote when you were attempting to convince us all that the UK could write its own constitution: http://www.for3.org/forums/showthrea...=echr+pabmusic Here's a reminder:

[Post 28}...In our present system, absolutely any measure [our parliament introduces] could be overturned by parliament - and nowadays, that de facto means by any government with a majority. The House of Lords can be overridden if the government chooses to invoke the Parliament Act, so the only question is: "Can we get legislation through the House of Commons?"

A constitution in the sense that other countries have them would mean that parliament could no longer be supreme. Even if there existed the will to do that, it's difficult to see how it could be achieved, because any legislation curtailing parliament's powers would have to be passed by the system that it sought to replace.

So what do we have? A parliament controlled by the government that cannot (at least by one argument) give up its supremacy. And the only thing that has the appearance of overriding parliament is the ECHR (and that only because we wish to be members of the Council of Europe, rather than a pariah state)...

[teamsaint]

Would Jeremy C be disqualified? Or anyone who knows him, or works with him, or has any form of association?

He would be if he accepted a caution for ABH or worse, or was convicted. And any member of his household would be liable to be disqualified too.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Safeguards are necessary, but being tainted by association is crazy.

It's rather like Jack Charlton's manipulations to get non-Irishmen into the team when he managed the national team.

"I know someone who once watched Terry Wogan on television, so that makes me Irish."

[Dave2002]

He would be if he accepted a caution for ABH or worse, or was convicted. And any member of his household would be liable to be disqualified too.

I believe I noticed that, though as yet I don't know if JC has any convictions or cautions which would apply.

Clearly sensible precautions are necessary, but disquailfication caused by minimal association is madness. Around the London area many schools exmploy class room assistants, or young teachers who have shared accommodation with others, and there may be a very high turnover in such places.

We once employed someone who was later convicted of fraud. We only found out when we tried to contact him to offer him more work, and failed, and we later found he was being detained by "her Majesty". We have not contacted him since. Does that make us criminals?

As others have pointed out, in some horrendous cases those who perpetrated crimes would not have been picked up by any standard form of screening, possibly not even the ones we have in place now.

The new regulations and their interpretation seem to have been badly thought out - perhaps back of fag packet stuff in the pub before closing time.

[Beef Oven!]

The Council of Europe and ECHR are based in Strasbourg.

Forgive me for finding it hard to keep up with all this European bureaucracy - the European Council is based in Brussels and the Council Of Europe in Strasbourg. So it's perfidious, unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg that oversee our parliamentary laws in the UK. Is there any room for some more bureaucrats on silly salaries with platinum-plated pensions, to oversee our lives for us? If so, can the rest of us jump on the gravy-train?

[ahinton]

The bureaucrats of The Council Of Europe and its European Convention On Human Rights are based in Brussels. As our learned friend tells us, our UK laws could be in breach of article 8. So you see, our UK laws are overseen by perfidious bureaucrats in Brussels, these days. It seems we all agree on that.

Being an employee of Council of Europe of of any EU member state's government or a civil servant working for such a government is no guarantee of bureaucracy; whilst I would not for one moment suggest that there's "no such thing as bureaucracy" (to paraphrase something that Margaret Thatcher infamously didn't actually say) - and l'affaire Dutilleux is surely one example of such bureacucracy at work - it is not endemic.

Anyway, a quick glance at the Council of Europe website at http://www.coe.int/en/ reveals its address and contact specifics to be
Council of Europe, Avenue de l'Europe F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex - Tel. +33 (0)3 88 41 20 00 - Fax. +33 (0)3 88 41 20 00
So that is where it is based.

It does not single out UK for special treatment in terms of overseeing UK's laws; it treats each member state equally. It is not itself a lawmaker but a monitor of lawmaking and is responsible for ECHR; its purpose is to monitor matters of democracy, the rule of law and human rights.

If a member state breaches any part of ECHR, it will in any case at the same time almost certainly be in breach of its own human rights legislation and of the two United Nations declarations / covenants that I mentioned earlier.

The only way in which UK could exonerate itself from the risk of being found to be in breach of any part of ECHR (other, of course, than not breaching it!) would be for UK government to sever its ECHR signatory status. However, as it could still be found to be in breach of the same or similar clauses in its own Human Rights Act 1998, it would have to abolish that in order not to run a similar risk. It would also have to withdraw as a signatory to the UN's UDHR and ICCPR. It won't - and, if it did, it would turn UK into a pariah state.

[Beef Oven!]

..............it would turn UK into a pariah state.

Oh no!

[ahinton]

Belarus isn't in Europe, btw

Where is it, then? Yes, it's not yet an EU member state, but it is a Council of Europe member state. Council of Europe has 19 more member states than has EU (i.e. a total of 47), as you will see from the list at http://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/47-members-states. Belarus, along with Ukraine and Moldova, is an ex-USSR European state within each of which there is a desire on the part of some people, including politicians, for EU membership status which one hopes they will eventually get, subject to circumstances for such membership being appropriate.

Of the minority of people who would like to see UK withdraw from EU membership, I am not sure how many would advocate its withdrawal from Council of Europe or how or whether such withdrawal could even be achieved in any case; even then, most people who would seek to advocate UK's withdrawal from either are not seeking the break-up of either.

[ahinton]

Oh no!

How could it not be under such circumstances? I suspect that, in order to withdraw from UDHR and ICCPR (to which almost every country of the world is a signatory as a UN member state), UK might have to withdraw from UN; as what else besides a pariah state could it reasonably then be regarded?

[Beef Oven!]

Where is it, then?

Israel is in the Eurovision Song Contest too

[Pabmusic]

...So it's perfidious, unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg that oversee our parliamentary laws in the UK. Is there any room for some more bureaucrats on silly salaries with platinum-plated pensions, to oversee our lives for us? If so, can the rest of us jump on the gravy-train?

No. It's judges of the ECHR (appointed by each country) together with the justice miniters (from each government) - who of course are elected - who oversee the ECHR. Beaurocrats might be found among the civil servants who administer the Council's decisions.