Tiers until the end of time

[runningpink]

Quickly putting this up as last thread is full

A shielding individual stays home because they want to protect their life. They can still exert almost all of their human rights it's just not safe to do so. They are stuck between a rock and hard place but its not a removal of human rights.

So they can’t avail themselves if their rights because someone has told them it’s not safe to do so. Their ability to assess that risk for themselves and decide to take that risk has been removed, as it has for all of us, by introducing legislation that restricts movement and imposes penalties for those who, having assessed that risk, decide that they are prepared to accept the risk of doing X because of the benefits that will give them however those benefits might be quantified.

Rights exist to the extent that people are able to exercise those rights.

The right to privacy and family life protects your right to make decisions in your home and in your private life. If I can’t decide to have friends and family in my private home, if I can be questioned at law about decisions I make for myself and my family, short of what would be considered criminal activity, I have lost my right to privacy and family life.

You might argue that’s necessary and proportionate, but it’s still a loss of human rights.

[quote rookiemere]@florafoxtrot agree with what you're saying. I'd be reasonably ok with fairly tight restrictions until end of April- with the exception of schooling but then my S3 will be lucky if he sees the inside of a school for more than a couple of days by end of April.

It's the open ended nature of SG roadmap that terrifies me. Will my DS never go back to getting full schooling, am I never to be allowed out of my city council boundary never mind into England or abroad? Yes mean I like south Queensferry and all but not sure I want my summer holidays there.

I agree that we don't know the dates for some of this stuff, but putting out a plan which ends with us still not able to see our family and friends inside or guarantee we can leave our council area seems pretty silly really. We've known about vaccines since December so write them into the plan.[/quote]
I know. The open endedness is really frustrating and I can’t imagine how hard it must be for those of you with secondary school age kids. My DD is only 2! I guess it’s a question of whether you want specific dates so you can hope but be aware you might be disappointed or not have any specific dates so there isn’t disappointment. Seems that the majority of people would rather fall into the first bracket and I can understand that but I would probably rather be in the second (and try to keep my hopes up!)

I do think vaccines are in the plan but that it’s linked to hospital admissions and although the initial evidence is good we just aren’t quite there yet.

@Jellycatspyjamas

Shielding is advisory. They can exercise their rights if they wish.

Movement between countries or council boundaries isn't a human right.

No legislation exists that has removed our human rights.

Mark Woolhouse has put a bomb under NS’s Xenophobic desire to continue with the Zero Covid strategy.

Have a read of what he’s said to the Covid committee- it certainly validates the lifting of any current cross (unicorn) border restrictions they would like to keep in place from April.

Science over politics, more please.

Check out articles 12 and 13 of the universal declaration of human rights (have a look at 19 too).

The Government are the ones who need to make what is a very difficult call

You have a lot more faith in the SG than I do then.
That is, I suspect, the crux of our failure to agree.

Dinosaur

💐💐💐

I am sad that you are suffering. Must be awful.

Don't assume I mean suicides. That's not the only deaths and other harms caused by lockdown. Late diagnosis due to people staying away from a non overwhelmed NHS last spring. People who haven't been able to access a dentist and have late diagnosis of mouth cancers etc etc etc. Services are sporadic across the country. I'm not blaming individual staff here.

I'm sorry @Dinosauratemydaffodils, this is an awful situation and so many are suffering in unseen ways.

@WaxOnFeckOff

Don't assume I mean suicides. That's not the only deaths and other harms caused by lockdown. Late diagnosis due to people staying away from a non overwhelmed NHS last spring. People who haven't been able to access a dentist and have late diagnosis of mouth cancers etc etc etc. Services are sporadic across the country. I'm not blaming individual staff here.

I suspect we will be seeing elevated excess deaths for years due to delayed diagnosis, increased alcoholism, drug abuse, obesity. The repercussions of this lockdown will be long

@reprehensibleme I am assuming that we are subject to the British Human Rights Act 1998 in which there is no mention of freedom of movement. Countries are under no obligation to enshrine all the rights in law. Looks like Britain hasn't gone for that one.

The other two you mentioned we have.

@MaxNormal all government have to weigh that balance and make that decision. I'm glad it's not me quite frankly. I

@WaxOnFeckOff I didn't assume you meant only suicides.

I did mention screening and other hospital related issues in my post.

I also acknowledged that I only had my own anecdata to suggest that the NHS was still operating for urgent abs serious cases, cancer referrals and screening.

If you have figures that suggest otherwise then feel free to share.

@reprehensibleme the other two we still have the use of those rights I mean.

No legislation exists that has removed our human rights.

So if I chose to drive outside of my authority area to visit family, I won’t run the risk of being stopped, questioned and penalised for doing so. If I invite friends to dinner I won’t run the risk of the police attending my private home, dispersing my guests and fining me? Because there’s no legislation stopping me from making decisions in my own home about my own family?

In the UK the right to travel is not a protected human right under law. So yes, they can restrict your right to travel.

The right to have someone over for dinner isn't a human right anywhere. So yes they can make it illegal without infringing on your legal human rights.

It's shit but it's not an infringement on your legal human rights.

@reprehensibleme I am assuming that we are subject to the British Human Rights Act 1998 in which there is no mention of freedom of movement. Countries are under no obligation to enshrine all the rights in law. Looks like Britain hasn't gone for that one.

I’m referring to the European Convention on Human Rights which is enshrined in the Human Rights Act which applies to Scotland, and to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which Scotland has ratified. You can’t weasel round by calling it “British” legislation as if it doesn’t apply in Scotland, which is still part of Britain in any event.

I can't go for a walk with 2 friends without risking being fined. I'm not allowed to risk rate that activity with my friends and decide as capable intelligent adult women that it's okay or not but no, my human rights are not infringed at all

"safe" is the most overused and abused word.

In today's news ...

 a further 769 positive lab tests are logged (3.7% of all tests); hospital patient numbers stand at 967 (down 51) and of those 89 are in ICU (down four)

The right to have someone over for dinner isn't a human right anywhere. So yes they can make it illegal without infringing on your legal human rights.

The right to make that decision, or indeed any decision in my private life, is though and yes my right to make that decision is infringed.

There isn't a human right to hang about with your pals sadly.

To be fair to you @Jellycatspyjamas human rights are devolved to Scotland so you're technically correct that the British one wouldn't apply.

From what I can see though they're pretty much the same. I can't see that movement is a human right enshrined by law.

Happy to be corrected though. The Scottish government website is the least user friendly thing I've ever used.

There is a human right to make the decision to do that though.

The implementation of the law is devolved to Scottish Government but the Human Rights Act 1998 extends to Scotland under the Scotland Act 1998 and so forms the legislative basis for Human Rights.

I don't think safe is most overused and abused word I think human rights is.

This reminds me when you ask kids about human rights and they say 'I've got the right to leave class to go to the toilet' 'I've got the right not to go to school if the bus is ten minutes late'

There are built in restrictions to the right of privacy and the government can intervene if it's in the interests of public safety.

So no you don't have the human right to decide to have folk over because there's always been a caveat to say that this can be taken away.

I'm not saying it's moral I'm saying that it's not a legal infringement on your human rights.

In Scotland.