government negligence

anonymous asked:

Could you tell us more about Theresa May's announcement today in regard to changing basic human rights? (Only if you can and have time ofc) Thanks in advance

This is just a quick overview so it’s kind of rough but: 

  1. She’s talking about the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. 
  2. The rights in the ECHR are by and large a duty on governments and therefore public authorities to uphold human rights obligations to people in their jurisdiction. It covers a whole range of stuff from the right to life, to not be tortured, to a fair trial to freedom of speech and religion. Thus, in practice it is a limit on the power of the government and a way to hold them accountable in a manner often not covered by other areas of law like criminal or tort. Many tort claims against the government are unsuccessful and a human rights claim can often be the only means of redress. 
  3. Her statement is bad news, in my opinion. She’s talked about wanting to scrap the HRA before these attacks so I definitely feel it is opportunistic on her part.
  4. Despite what the Daily Mail or the Tories claim, the vast majority of ECHR rights benefit and protect law-abiding citizens. There is a lot of hay made out of how the ECHR does not allow the state to deport people to countries where they might be tortured, and this at times covers terrorist suspects. But to begin with, there are many other options to dealing with these people- like monitoring them (whereby the Tories’ cuts to the police and security services don’t help) or even just jailing them for terrorism charges here. Further, many of these terrorists are British citizens and deportation is not going to be possible. And in the first place, once we start stripping rights from people we don’t like, it’s only going to be a slippery slope from then on. Even criminals and suspects have some basic human rights. 
  5. I emphasise it’s gonna be bad because I’ve read dozens upon dozens of human rights cases. The vast majority of them involve people’s claims against the UK government responsible for abuses, negligence or overreach of power that ended up violating their human rights. One example of a successful case involved the failure of the social services to protect children who had been severely neglected and abused by their parents despite being aware of the situation. Another involved the parents of a man who had been imprisoned for a minor charge who was killed in custody because the prison had put him in the same cell as another inmate known to be dangerous and violent. Many of the deportation cases also don’t even involve terrorist suspects but asylum seekers at real risk of being persecuted for their religion or sexuality who are appealing the rejection of their asylum claim by invoking human rights in the ECHR. 
  6. All in all, we should be wary of Theresa May’s attempts to justify this because of the threat of terrorism, especially given that she herself as Home Secretary has harmed the capacity of the police and emergency services to respond through repeated cuts despite being warned otherwise. It seems very convenient her first instinct is to take a potshot at the Human Rights Act when the police themselves have cited funding issues and personnel cuts as being a key problem. 

anonymous asked:

Can you please tell me if it is true some people in Britain have to pay for NHS?


Well, we all pay for the NHS through tax. The NHS was built on the principles that it is free at the point of access for all. Rich, poor, young and old. Shoutout to Welshman, a saviour to many and Labour MP Nye Bevan for the NHS. “No society can legitimately call itself civilised if a sick person is denied medical aid because of lack of means.” 

Everybody is entitled to the NHS which covers all your medical needs from routine GP checks to complex surgery. You have to pay for things like holiday vaccinations because they have to buy that into the surgery, but that’s not too bad. 

And then there are certain treatments you’ll have to pay for because the NHS just doesn’t have the equipment or funding [because of the government]. So you’ll have to go private but that’s usually stuff like specialist cancer treatment and trials when the NHS have exhausted all their options.

So prescription medication is a bit of a muddle. All medication is £8.60 as a max and min but not everybody has to pay. You do not have to pay for prescription medication if you:

  • are 60 or over
  • are under 16
  • are 16-18 and in full-time education
  • are pregnant or have had a baby in the previous 12 months and have a valid maternity exemption certificate (MatEx)  
  • have a specified medical condition and have a valid medical exemption certificate (MedEx)
  • have a continuing physical disability that prevents you from going out without help from another person and have a valid MedEx
  • hold a valid war pension exemption certificate and the prescription is for your accepted disability
  • are an NHS inpatient
  • on welfare benefits, mainly people on low income, such as Income Support, Income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance, Income-related Employment and Support Allowance, or  Pension Credit Guarantee Credit
  • If you have chronic illnesses that require medication such as diabetes, epilepsy or you’re undergoing cancer treatment.
  • more information here
  • If you fit some of the above criteria [under 16, on a low income, have diabetes, etc] you are also entitled to free eye tests [free glasses for under 16′s and a considerable discount for low-income earners] and free dental care.
  • I think the NHS also offers some sort of depression/anxiety therapy too but I’m not entirely sure.
  • There is also private healthcare available if you can afford it.

It’s not all roses, there are also some really big flaws in our NHS system [long waiting list for specialists, not routine appointments which you can get in a week or two with your gp or that same day if it’s an emergency. Emergency specialist appointments are prioritised. The NHS doesn’t always have the best latest equipment/drugs] but I personally put those issues down to government underfunding, understaffing and government negligence. As a country we love our NHS, it’s doctors, nurses and all of its staff [apart from maybe it’s IT teams, am I right?] and we will fight and defend it to our last breath. Despite the mess of our country, I will never speak ill of the NHS and its staff. 

I also read a post a while ago that “certain” countries have to pay for ambulances?  Yeah, we don’t pay for ambulances. Although, I personally believe drunk arseholes on a Friday/Saturday night who are verbally and physically abusive to ambulance/A&E staff should pay. For foreign visiting travellers in the UK; certain treatments such as emergency or STI treatments are free. So if you think it’s a good day to get stabbed or an STI, make sure it’s in the UK. 

”The NHS will last as long as there are folk left with faith to fight for it.” - Nye Bevan.

No! Charlie Gard was murdered via government negligence and overreach! The British state murdered that boy, but not before disgracing his parents. Charlie Gard is yet another victim of Socialism and of this Nihilist society which we call the West.

Let’s Talk

Government Inaction
Demonstration at the White House, Washington DC, June 1987

Let’s Talk Genocide Mr. President
20,000 Dead Americans
And You Want A Commission? 

Abusive and Criminal Cree Character

Anonymous asked: 

I’m writing a story with a lot of characters involved in illegal stuff. One of the characters is Cree, but adopted off of the reservation (which happened to be right on the US-Canada border). That comes up later because of his US-Canada double citizenship, which he uses later in the story with illegal stuff. This character is abusive towards the (white) MC and is generally not a good person, even though he seems like it at first. There are quite a few other POC characters in this story, but this is the only character whose race/nationality actually plays a major part in the plot. Are there any stereotypes/harmful things I should be aware of when writing with this character? I always try to be really careful with the way I write antagonist(ish) characters who are LGBT, POC, etc., and I honestly couldn’t find much information about things to avoid with Native characters who aren’t magical. Thank you! (P.S. this blog is great!)

I would suggest you look at your character again and see if you can answer your own question.

1- You have the only character with an emphasized race as a criminal.

This means the associations between race and criminality will be highly prominent. While these stereotypes can be latent when ethnicity isn’t emphasized, turning it into a plot point makes it obvious.

2- You do not mention any other Cree or Native characters

Meaning there is nobody to counteract the characterization of Native= criminal, which is a common stereotype (especially in the Canadian Prairies). There’s nobody within the group to call him out, or to be an opposing moral force on the good guys’ side.

3- It ignores why crime happens in Native communities

Say it with me, folks: people often turn to illegal activity when they are left with no other recourse to take care of themselves and/or generate social change.

Illegal activity in Native communities is an extraordinarily touchy topic, because law breaking is often the only way these communities have recourse against negligent governments. A few years ago I heard about how Manitoba tribes were going to open up trade of illegal cigarettes to the West if the government didn’t start listening to them, as an ultimatum. The government, of course, continued to ignore them— but imagine being in a situation where the only threat left is crime?

As a result, I would be more sensitive to the potential social context of this person’s illegal activities.

4- Adoption plots are extraordinarily complicated and must be handled with care

At best, you have a “separated from culture and becomes lost” cautionary tale. At worst, you have “Natives cannot take care of themselves and are terrible people regardless” narrative. I’d suggest looking into stuff like the 60s Scoop and various other “adoption programs” by the government to see their critiques. You have to remember Native Americans are under constant threat of forced assimilation and adoptions are very frequently colonialist.

General Commentary

I think your issue here is you’re looking for writing advice when instead you should be looking for political relations between Natives and their respective governments. You’ll have to find the stereotypes in news articles and bodies of work around current Native events/activism projects, because yes, there is very little on Native characters.

As a result, you need to turn to the real world. See the public perception of Native people (in Canada, at least, that tends to boil down to “lazy alcoholics who abuse their children and have absolute disregard for the law”) and determine what to avoid from there. Study how Native individuals are shown in history documentaries, textbooks, news stories, and press releases.

Also learn about the general issues with PoC villains across cultures, because there is a certain amount of overlap, especially in regards to the negative connotations they generate.

Right now, your characterization is very disrespectful. You’re relying too much on the writing advice circulating— which is extraordinarily low amounts of information, because of how little representation Natives get— instead of looking at the broader cultural context. When dealing with real world settings you have to look at the broader society. Not only do you have to research the tribe, but you have to look at all the context around the tribe.

Broaden your scope of research and start noticing Native racism, specifically in the region you’re going to write in.

~ Mod Lesya

Solarpunk - a tale of two worlds

I’ve been following this tag pretty much through its inception, I’ve seen here and there people throwing ideas and chipping on how the solarpunk world should be. I’m not trying to put anything new, but rather to give a nice summation of the two most popular ideas I’ve seen. The two worlds as I’ve seen them can be described as The Jeffersonian Yeoman and a Socialist Utopia (please do not make a negative association). 

The less popular one is The Jeffersonian Yeoman. As a world I’ve seen it described and it appears to be more of Libertarian/Wild West type, than it’s Socialist counterpart. In it people live lives independent of the community - they generate their own electricity (via green means), they produce their own food (aquaponics), they supply their own water, The world of the Jeffersonian Yeoman - as I’ve said it before - is a Libertarian Utopia. There is very little government, almost no taxes and almost no social welfare and negligible government regulation. However this is Solarpunk and thus it is optimistic. While the individual tends to be much more important than the community, The Jeffersonian Yeoman is raised better than the modern person. He is moral, he follows the law, he helps those down on their luck, because he feels a personal responsibility to help those less fortunate.

 The second and more popular version is the Socialist Utopia. In it, as the name implies, the government and community take much more active roles. In it you can usually see things like Universal Income, communal housing and eating centers. Charity and care for the downtrodden is still done by people, but a much more heavy emphasis is put on social programs and the welfare state. Communal projects also tend to be much more common - where the community as a whole would do something - where is the Jeffersonian would be less likely to engage in such activities.

I like both of them in their own unique way and hope to see them explore, Solarpunk is such a nice idea.