geared Posted October 31, 2013 Author Share Posted October 31, 2013 I think when you are an official and start speaking to the press on an issue it doesn't matter if it represents the UN's official line - it's still seen as a comment put forward by the UN. Especially as the comments were made on a business trip and during business hours. If you want to express your personal opinion then you do it on your personal blog/twitter or whatever - you don't round up the press and do it there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 That's right. She was invited here to "assess the enjoyment of human rights on the ground". She had every right to report on the bedroom tax but she was wrong to criticise it and pose for photos like she did, making it look like the UN was against the tax. Jane Connors, an aide to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, wrote to Mr Shapps: “As in the case of all country visits, Ms Rolnik’s visit concluded with a press conference and a press statement, provided to the Government in advance, which indicate preliminary findings and recommendations.” However, she added that Ms Rolnik was acting in an “independent capacity”. She is not a staff member of the UN, is neither accountable to nor appointed by the Secretary-General and does not receive any compensation beyond a daily allowance when engaged in mandated activities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted October 31, 2013 Author Share Posted October 31, 2013 If you caught a postman ******* in your bush you'd be up in arms and deploring Royal Mail. Regardless of if he was 'acting in an independent capacity' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manlinose Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 If you caught a postman ******* in your bush you'd be up in arms and deploring Royal Mail. Regardless of if he was 'acting in an independent capacity' why would you blame royal mail if a postman used your garden as a toilet? i could be wrong, but i would hazard a guess that it isn't official royal mail advice to postmen caught short (or even unofficial advice) if, however, royal mail supported the postie in such a situation i'd agree with you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 That's right. She was invited here to "assess the enjoyment of human rights on the ground". She had every right to report on the bedroom tax but she was wrong to criticise it and pose for photos like she did, making it look like the UN was against the tax. Part of her assessment of human rights in the UK was that the recent change to benefits partially infringed some rights. Well within her remit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 See post 22. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spilldig Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Affordable housing would be a good place to start. By the way I would have thought a DM reader would be more likely to refer to it as a benefit than a tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Threads merged Please use the search function before creating new threads. Thank you. 1. I did search, this thread title is not specific at all, so even if the search function did work, I wouldn't have found this thread. 2. The search function is not working properly. It doesn't bring up many recent results, that it should do. ---------- Post added 31-10-2013 at 18:05 ---------- [/color]I'd have to disagree with the ridiculous notion from chem1st that the government controls employment, income and housing. They have influence, but if they could control it then they'd welcome nearly full employment, high income and plenty of housing, because then the economy would prosper and everyone would benefit. The government controls employment and if it wants could ensure FULL EMPLOYMENT, like it did after the war, it can also pursue policies which have high unemployment, like it does now, and has done many times before, structural unemployment is good for businesses. Income is controlled by government via the granting of monopolies and privileges, it could purse policies that lead to high income or low incomes and high income inequalities or low inequalities. Government controls the level of housing, it could ensure everyone was housed in decent accommodation if it wanted. This could be done by allowing people to houses themselves, or by building council housing, or by doing both... Currently it restricts building and demolishes council housing. The government is not an organisation run solely for the benefit of the common man, it is controlled and run by people who seek to use it to control others. Hence high income inequality, poor housing for the masses, and high structural unemployment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 The government does NOT control employment. It could inflate the state though and employ people, but this generates no value and doesn't reduce the cost to the country at all, it's counter productive. Income is NOT controlled by the government, although it has numerous means of affecting it. The majority of industries do not operate within a license scheme or within a controlled monopoly. Housing is possibly the one where it could make the largest difference, but you might have noticed that when it cuts planning laws it has a problem with a large number of voters, so if it wants to retain power in the next few years it has to balance the desires of the many. Nobody benefits from high unemployment or high inequality, not even the rich people you believe secretly run the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 The government does NOT control employment. It could inflate the state though and employ people, but this generates no value and doesn't reduce the cost to the country at all, it's counter productive. Income is NOT controlled by the government, although it has numerous means of affecting it. The majority of industries do not operate within a license scheme or within a controlled monopoly. Housing is possibly the one where it could make the largest difference, but you might have noticed that when it cuts planning laws it has a problem with a large number of voters, so if it wants to retain power in the next few years it has to balance the desires of the many. Nobody benefits from high unemployment or high inequality, not even the rich people you believe secretly run the government. The government can control employment to some extent by providing the environment and climate in which businesses can flourish. In the UK that largely means ripping people off and exploiting people without conforming to authoritive meddling. High unemployment is a price worth paying, remember that little doozy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.