Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh
|
I know.
it was mostly a personal opinion.
Quote:
|
Mr Justice Foskett, sitting at the high court in London, said that "characterising such a scheme as involving or being analogous to 'slavery' or 'forced labour' seems to me to be a long way from contemporary thinking".
|
Second time around.
---------- Post added at 22:28 ---------- Previous post was at 22:09 ----------
Quote:
The European Court of Human Rights’ definition of forced labour in Article
4 is derived from Article 2 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO)
Convention 29.5 This defines forced labour as ‘all work or service which is
exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the
said person has not offered himself voluntarily’.
|
That judges reasoning was based on comparing a British person being put in the position of slavery by the British Government. and probably being distracted by the comparism of 'The British' and immigrants and such.
remember. before now it was always being made a point by Grayling and such that this workfare was a 'voluntary' thing. it's since been proved that it isn't, wasn't. and never was.
that is really weird now remembering how people made a point of saying that it was voluntary and not compulsory.
they went as far as to say that it was voluntary from the start. but once the 'volunteer' had commited, then it became compulsory.
we now know that the 'volunteer' never 'volunteered' in the first place.
it was compulsory from the start. enforced with threats of losing money.
which has now been ruled must be returned.
volunteering was the key thing in this scam.
we have a case.