Fred Goodwin, mentioned in Parliament.

Apparently Fred Goodwin was mentioned in parliament on the 10th of march by John Hemming.

He apparently objects to being referred to by his previous profession, and so got a super injunction according to the speech in Parliament.

Well, I don't think of him as one of those, but a w*nker. And no that is not rhyming slang.

Human Rights Not Gone Mad Shocker!

I first heard this story on BBC Radio 4's news but have also read it in the papers, for example, the Daily Telegraph has this.

The story concerns an elderly lady in a care home where she was placed by the council, her eviction due to issues between the care home's management and her relatives and the human rights act.

Liberty supported her as did the government.

The Law Lords found against, finding that private care homes are not providing a public service. Let us look at some quotes from those who are upset:

The civil rights group Liberty condemned the ruling saying urgent legislation was now needed to change the Act to prevent local authorities from "contracting out of dignity for Britain's elderly".

Quite possibly but that involves constraining the public body not the private one surely? You can't go around placing the responsibilities of government willy nilly on private individuals.

Help the Aged said it was "a sickening blow to older people and their families everywhere" and that it left "vulnerable older people open to neglect, abuse and eviction, without redress through the Human Rights Act".

Well I have some sympathy for the rhetoric, however older people being open to neglect and abuse is either a matter of criminal law or contractual provisions being enforced. As for eviction, as hard as it sounds, a landlord always needs the ability to evict a tenant if they are causing a problem.

The Government, who had argued in favour of the woman's case through the Lord Chancellor, were also disappointed. Baroness Ashton, Minister for Human Rights said they were now "carefully considering the implications of this judgment".

Quite right too. The government needs to consider what it can or can't contract out.

The judgement is right in my view. The Human Rights act is nothing more than enshrining the European Convention on Human Rights in British law (which is odd) which is nothing more that forcing the principles of English Common Law on Europe. The aim of this was to protect the individual against the arbitrary and unreasonably actions of the state.

The care home is a private care home not a state one. It could accept private or publicly funded residents. It operates as a for profit company. To make a private company that does some work for the public sector operate with the same responsibilities as the state is clearly wrong but also commercially not viable.

There was always going to be a loser in a case like Natallie Evans' case

I would hope that all people with charitable hearts would feel for Natallie Evans today, she has after all lost all chance of having her own baby, that is of her own flesh. It is not like she has not tried, not fought the fight, she has taken it as far as she possibly could.

I would also like to think that all good people with charitable hearts would have felt for Howard Johnston had the case gone the other way.

There are times in the affairs of men when these things happen. You have to balance the rights of one person against the other and no matter what the outcome it will never be satisfactory to all.

You see, had he had testicular cancer and were no longer able to impregnate he would have been in exactly the same position.

With a bit of luck and a following wind both sperm and eggs will be stored unfertilized just in case relationships split. It certainly seems to be the prudent thing to do in the light of all the circumstances and I would argue that it would be negligent of any fertility clinic not to offer such a service.

The BBC has this rather sad story.