Bedroom tax breaches human rights.

I believe the defensive/aggressive response of the government and some of the media to the comments of the UN envoy says a great deal about the government frankly.

Rafts of changes to housing, public service, health - none of it evidence based, all ideologically driven.

The use of offensive language to describe someone whose opinion/findings you don't agree with seems typical of the government's culture. If children in school behaved used offensive/racist or sexist language to dismiss someone's point of view, they'd be taken to task. We have a government who seem to be propagating a bullying approach whenever they're confronted with people who disagree with policy.

Every country thinks it's different from other countries.

J08, we are not different. We signed up to the Un Convention on Human Rights. We expect other countries to abide by the UN, as in Syria, which you are very vociferous on, but you do not think we should.
Smacks of colonialism to me. You'll want the Empire back next.

Freedom of speech? What happened to the millions who opposed the second Iraq war? What will happen to the views of the 70% who are opposed to privatising Royal Mail? Head in the sand time?

It's a shame the UN cannot look into the abuse of our rights with the NHS as well.

'We are different from other countries. Value our independence more. We don't take criticism lying down.'
j08 you mean you think that...not every citizen does! As others have said GB is a signed up member of the UN and expects other countries to abide by the findings/agreements. GB is not a special country ..we are one of many and the more we stick our head in the sand and think we are special the more the rest of the world will laugh!

There is a misuse of the term Human Rights here. Bedroom tax, NHS cuts, Council Tax are not breaches of Human Rights they are the result of a democratically-elected government.

I think the phrase should be reserved for the likes of those poor souls who live in dictatorships, war zones, or on the streets of India, etc.

Try standing in your local town centre, ensuring that you are not causing an obstruction and make an anti government speech. See how long it is before the police arrive and ask you to 'move on'. You could argue that you are simply exercising your right to free speech but then you are told you are causing an obstruction. Of course you checked before you started speaking so you know that's not true so you explain this to the police officer. He then accuses you of causing a disturbance. Well now you're in a Catch 22 because technically you are simply by debating with the police officer as it's bound to have attracted the attention of people passing by. Continue your debate and you'll find yourself being arrested for a breach of the peace.

Now of course a breach of the peace is not in itself a criminal offence, but the police and any other person have a power of arrest where there are reasonable grounds for believing a breach of the peace is taking place or is imminent. The Court of Appeal defined a breach of the peace as being ‘an act done or threatened to be done which either actually harms a person, or in his presence, his property, or is likely to cause such harm being done'.

Although the policeman's opinion is subjective he can arrest you based on what he believes might be or might be about to happen.

The right of free speech is a myth.

It was actually the UN envoy that said the bedroom tax is an abuse of British people's human rights, and she has been backed up by an expert in international human rights from the University of Nottingham, who criticised the government for its hysterical response.
Because some of us are concerned about what this government is doing against the welfare of vulnerable people in this country does not mean we do not care about the people who live in dictatorships and warzones.
There is no limit to my compassion.

vampirequeen you are right. it is getting more and more difficult to demonstrate peacefully too. Various new adjustments to laws are quietly eroding the traditional freedom to protest that has been part of UK democracy.

That actually happened to someone I know in the 1980s when we collecting for the miners outside Sainsbury's in Winchester, Vampirequeen.
We were also not allowed to shake the collecting tin as that would be begging and we could end up in the cells.

Is anyone following the debate on the lobbying Bill?
What ever free speech we have will disappear if that gets through.

Anti-terrorism laws were widely misused to stifle debate.
A friend of mine was photographed in a peaceful protest outside Greenham Common. She was not arrested, nor was her name taken. Back home, she was stopped on a trumped up assertion that her brake light was not working (it was). The policeman knew her name and address and that she had been at Greenham
You live in a police state. Dr. David Kelly?
Before anybody accuses me of not caring about the abuses of power in other countries of the world, two wrongs, or many wrongs, do not make a right.
The present government was not democratically elected as no one party had a majority.

Jendurham I think we can all have limitless compassion but there is no way that the UN can equate someone in a three-bedroom house which is being paid for by public funds having to find an extra £13 a week with say, that of a refugee living under occupation in Gaza.

Ms Rolnik's time might be better spent investigating the demolition of Palestinian houses on the West Bank.

As I said in an earlier post we should not think ourselves above international scrutiny or criticism but I just object to what I see as the misuse of the phrase 'Human Rights'.

Just because we seem to enjoy more human rights than others doesn't mean that any faults shouldn't be highlighted.

You seem to underestimate how difficult it can be to find an extra £13 a week btw. If you're living week to week and just managing to break even then £13 is a huge amount of money to find. I would find it very difficult and, before anyone asks, I don't smoke, drink, go out, have Sky or a 50 inch television.

What about the woman who, after having to pay this extra £13 per week for her two bedroomed flat because there are no single bedroom flats to move to, has only £4 per week left of disposable income?
There are people investigating the demolition of Palestinian houses on the West Bank.
We supposedly live in a wealthy country, so does that mean we have fewer rights to a decent life?
As I said earlier, the right to decent housing for people in this country is enshrined in the UN declaration which we signed up to.
People in Durham are patting themselves on the back for doing cycle rides to make a thousand pounds for the foodbanks. I find that obscene.
There are foodbanks in Morpeth, the county town of Northumberland. That's obscene too.

I don't underestimate at all Vampirequeen how difficult it is to find extra money - I too live on a modest income.

It's just not a matter for the United Nations!

Why not? Anything that affects human rights is a matter for the United Nations. How can we get involved and give advice to other countries if we don't put our own house in order?

The UN do a lot of 'investigating' Jendurham but have yet to bring any sanctions against Israel.

The Israelis simply refuse to co-operate so the UN backs off.

Nothing would please me more than to see Grant Shapps and Eric Pickles 'live in interesting times' but that's up to the British electorate.

The UN Declaration of Human Rights was drawn up after WW2 in an attempt to prevent a similar atrocity. I can't see any mention of the right to a spare bedroom. Have I missed something?

We have been treated to this spurious dichotomy before on this subject. We were told that because we did not agree with this attack on the poorest people in society,we did not care about homeless families. This is dishonest debating - trying to make people who disagree with you seem callous.
Of course we all care about homeless and oppressed people wherever they live, but depriving the very poor of the little they have is not the solution. Perhaps once sufficient smaller properties have been found (either by prefabricated buildings, converting disused warehouses or unused office blocks, and all the other suggestions that were made) the proposals might be considered, but at the moment it is simply a way of taking benefits away from the people who can least afford it.

Yes, Sel, you have missed the whole argument, which is that people should not be punished for something over which they have no control.
Most of the unfair practices that have been put right under the Human Rights legislation were not specifically spelt out.

Vampirequeen for me it's a question of priorities.

The people of this country are well able to speak for themselves and stand up for their rights and for those less able. With all its imperfections, in our system we have elections and civil rights under law.

The truly powerless, desperate, destitute, starving, and war-torn are those that the UN should concentrate on.

What about our powerless, destitute and starving? Are we to ignore them because we're not 'war torn'?

We're one of the richest countries in the world and we have food banks. How disgusting is that? Shouldn't something be done about it or should we brush it under the carpet?

How will taking benefits from poor people in Britain help the destitute in other countries? Tell the people living on benefits how very well off we are.

The whole argument Greatnan? I have looked at the UDHR and presume the pertinent article is 25(1) the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of his family. I don't see the contravention here, if in social housing, one bedroom per couple is adequate surely? More would be nice obviously in case of visiting family or sickness but there are limited resources and those with dependent children surely have the greater need.

I understand the issue regarding the under supply of one bedroom properties, the need to build more etc., my post was querying how this contravened the UDHR.