Human Rights concerns around the world

Human rights concerns do persist in all parts of the world with killings, torture, ill treatment, illegal detention, slavery, forced labour, lack of freedom of movement, assembly, expression, enforced disappearance.

We all face difficult humanitarian situation, and residents are facing life without effective protection of their rights.

People are facing difficulties in exercising economic and social rights with no access to quality medical care, accommodation, social services and benefits. Some have no access to life savings, people with disabilities with little assistance. All these have left them in bleak, life threatening conditions. Residents may be affected by the broad curtailment of their rights due to the application of a restrictive legal framework imposed on them.

While one country is criminally accountable for human rights abuses. It is usually the police or law enforcement officers who have not properly addressed these issues, or are not collecting facts. There are allegations of violations of the right to life, liberty, security, physical integrity, fair trial, freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

These allegations can be lies [trying to blame the other] or through hate or spite for the other. The situation has deteriorated with serious consequences for one's country's territorial integrity, stability and unity.

This is because of one's country's poor economic situation, and lack of reforms like police, prisons, judicial courts etc.

I have to point out that imposing sanctions does have a detrimental effect when there is no more money available to do these reforms. Changes to reforms can be so dramatic, that it takes time to do all these properly.

And if one's country starts to have economic difficulties because of a war, everything has to be on a back burner. It makes sense to try and prioritise the economy above everything else including war.

When a war takes place, one's country does the reversal of being a third world country. So human rights terms and conditions are so appalling and neglected. That it takes a great climb back up from third world to second world country, and from second world to first world country.

It could take a few years, decades or centuries depending on the competence of each government.

Human Rights Act

Only 24% of us have actually voted for David Cameron's government. David Cameron wants us to believe that everyone agrees with his plan to scrap the Human Rights Act.

It is beyond belief that David Cameron is trying to abolish the law which gives us the right not to be tortured, the right to a fair trial and the right to an education.

The Human Rights Act offers protection for the people of our country, and the policies allows any of us to hold public institutions like the police, prisons and councils to account.

Without such protection, one would be wrongly accused of a crime, the government will be allowed to breach our privacy, and anyone could fall victim to careless decisions made by authorities.

We must stand up for fairness, equality and justice and keep Human Rights Act. The only thing the present government should do is to stop the abuse of human rights, and do something about it.

Gay Marriage

I have always thought that any government had no right to talk about gay marriage. It was a very big mistake that any government would introduce the debate on Gay Marriage. The present or past government have no right to introduce a law, or bills on gay marriage that has nothing to do with the state.

The state had no right to redefine marriage. It is not an equality issue when it comes to Canon's Law as is part of the law of the land stating marriage in its nature a union of one man and woman and is intended to make children in the christian union. The institution of marriage in churches is distinctive, and applies to all christians between man and woman.

There is no reason why same sex couples can have a blessing in a church, if they are Christians, and wants to bring any child or children up as Christians.

But the churches have to be held accountable to bless same sex couples and LGBTs as they have to be scrutinised against criminal records for being paedophiles or sex offenders. What the government can do is get civil partnerships performed not only by councils, but adoption and fostering agencies as well to get more policing efforts to make sure no same sex couples, and LGBTs have a criminal record during the process of vetting before they marry.

Same sex couples have already got equality by taking part in civil partnerships, and still able to marry. It takes nothing away from their relationships. They still have recognition of being married, and able to share the same rights as inheriting money, properties etc. Under current law same sex marriage can have a civil partnership, but not a civil marriage, and there is no legitimate reason to change this.

National Aids Trust v NHS England via High Court and World Health Organisation

I am astonished at the High Court's decision in the case of National Aids Trust versus NHS England to providing preventative treatment for both gay men and sex workers at risk of HIV/AIDS infection.

The World Health Organisation recommends that anyone at high risk of HIV/AIDS infection should receive PrEP.

This is not about discrimination, it is about health, and there is no stigma attached to it, just because anyone could be gay.

The High Court and World Health Organisation have been mislead on the rights of gay men and sex workers to get treatment from NHS England.

It is about duty and costs. NHS England has no real duty to provide preventative treatment because regulations introduced in 2012 transferred many public health responsibilities to local authorities. While PrEP is preventative and curative, it is not for gay men and sex workers to seek it from NHS England.

Treatment options for HIV/AIDS should be sought from sexual health charities such as the Terrence Higgins Trust supporting gay men and sex workers.

NHS England spends £360,000 on average treating an individual who contracts HIV/AIDS over the course of their lifetime only on HIV/AIDS positive mothers and children who have been exposed to HIV/AIDS within 72 hours through no fault of their own.

PrEP is not a promiscuity pill or a lifestyle drug. While women who are exposed have the right to make a range of decisions about their bodies, men also have the right to make a range of decisions about their bodies too.

But men has to take responsibilities if they transmit HIV/AIDS for the sake of pleasure, and at a huge cost of NHS England.

This is wrong, as NHS England cannot be responsible to take preventative measures while men choose to take part in an unclean act in carnal relations for pleasure creating health problems which also include cancers.

There is nothing morally wrong with men wanting to love each other, but taking part in an unchristian and unclean act increasing chances of infection or infecting their partners is not a preventative act to good health.

If men truly love each other, they would not put their lives at risk, and use alternatives to maintain a deep loving relationship. It is their responsibility to consider a sensible public health approach to take preventative measures.

It is no good saying 'Oh goody, we can protect ourselves with a pill'.

We cannot expect NHS England to pay for the huge costs of sexual health of gay men and sexual workers.

But they can use the sexual health charities at their peril, or pay costs themselves.

NHS England does have a duty to make sure PrEP is available, and sexual health charities can buy and obtain them from NHS England, and be sure to include records of users to be included in the NHS medical records.

This is about discipline and restraint as well as responsibilities.

I understand that using condoms are not really 100% preventative, but it is also the responsibility of the condom makers to make sure it is, by making them a bit thicker, stronger and foolproof designed for men and sexual workers.

NHS has been on life support for a very long time financially

There will always be deep seated systemic problems. It is wrong to think of NHS be rationed, cuts yes, but rationed no.

I agree that the NHS should make efficiency savings, but only on wastage areas.

We cannot have restrictions on any surgery, hospitals or employment if it is going to affect standard of care.

We have had serious warnings in the past as well as in the present, about rationing of health services whenever there is a financial crisis. Being in a financial crisis does not help to address the deep seated systemic problems.

Extra funding can be avoided and major cuts need not be inevitable. But no government have managed not to affect standard of care without cuts and lack of funding. No government have managed the top down organisation.

Demand is growing because no government have tackled any problems within the NHS. The way it is going, the NHS will only have doctors and nurses, and no treatments at all for the patients. 

All these problems needs to be addressed.

The government advisers have no clue on how to help NHS face serious financial challenges. 

Only I can see the problems, and see efficiencies in the NHS, and can organise the top down of the NHS.

It is not true that the NHS has a strong plan to balance the books, and that they are providing support for this. There is no proof of this, and it is not stated how. This has been going on for decades, and the black hole in funding the NHS is getting deeper.

There is no way anyone can save the NHS.

But I can, but no one will employ me to turn the NHS around, and make it a healthy institution.

The NHS has been on life support for a very long time financially.