Skip to main content

The UK EHRC does not know the meaning of human rights

A report has been published this morning concerning the quality of personal care for the elderly in England and Wales. It sets out findings that suggest that about 50% of those it quizzed are receiving a quality of care that is unacceptable. That, of course, is extremely unfortunate. However there are several features of this report which render its findings questionable at best and useless at worst.

The first is the author of the report is the Equality and Human Rights Commission. This is a statutory body that "promote[s] and monitor[s] human rights and.. protect[s] enforce[s] and promote[s] equality across the nine "protected" grounds- age, disability, gender, race, religion and belief, pregnancy and maternity, marriage and civil partnership, sexual orientation and gender reassignment.". The leader of this body is Trevor Phillips OBE, who has had a controversial record. Indeed six members of the commission have left after a series of disputes with the now part time chairman of the commission. Others are said to be considering their position.

It is not a body that has specific skills that could allow it to undertake a specialist investigation of the realities  of care for the elderly. Indeed it even undermines the quality of its own conclusions by suggesting that the problems that they identify could be much worse, because some might be "too frightened to complain". The alternative, that those who are complaining the loudest may be exaggerating the position is not considered. So the only valid conclusion of this extremely expensive report is that there may be problems in the provision of personal care services to the elderly, but that the scale of this problem is not quantified.

What bothers me the most is not that problems have been identified- I doubt that there is any aspect of the provision of public care- or private, for that matter- that could be above criticism. No, my beef is that the EHRC suggests that this problem is a human rights problem, and that the solution is- surprise surprise- to bring the provision of personal care under the control of human rights legislation. So a "human rights" quango wants to expand its remit, well pardon my cynicism, but "they would, wouldn't they?".

Personally I feel that this report like so much of the "human rights" industry of special pleading in the UK actually degrades the idea of the fundamental nature of human rights. The fundamental rights enshrined under the universal declaration of human rights have been ignored by the UK, but not in the way that the country provides care to its elderly citizens. The use of torture and violence by British forces in Iraq, for example, is well documented- and it is to our thorough discredit. To try to put the patterns of behaviour which the commission says it identifies in certain aspects of treatment of the elderly on the same level as torture is totally inappropriate.

There may be a problem with personal care with the elderly being inadequate. It would not be a good thing if this was so. The remedy is to improve management and reporting and probably funding in the areas where a need for such change is found. The remedy is not to submit to the special pleading of a self appointed human rights industry that can not tell the difference between real human rights abuse and the poor delivery of services.

Since the EHRC can not tell the difference, it is hard to understand why the UK government should continue to fund such a patently useless organisation.


Anonymous said…
What utter nonsense you've just written - if frail elderly care home residents of institutions which are supposed to care for their needs are left to decompose in their own urine and vomit or physicially malhandled by their carers isn't that also 'degrading and inhuman treatment.'

The rights to life, liberty, freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment, and the rights to family life and privacy are all protected rights under european and domestic human rights law and quite rightly so - if any of your close relatives (eg parents and grandparents) had sufferred the sort of treatment that the EHRC has highighted, then I expect you would agree that their basic human rights would have been violeted.
Anonymous said…
Ps - I really do think you should reconsider this. Usually your blog and posts are full of good insights and analysis. But I think you might be out of depth here - I note your profile says you are investment banker which of course qualifies you to wax lyrical about the human rights and the tryanny of human rights advocates.

The job of EHRC is to shine a light on those 'dark places' of our human endevours where humanity gets neglected - if EHRC become unpopular with Government and the daily mail it rather suggests they are doing something right, making people feel uncomfortable by challenging unacceptable things that we are turning a blind eye to.
Cicero said…
With due respect Anon,I think it is a pretty poor show that we are being asked to accept uncritically a report that is mostly waffle with a few headline grabbing but largely unsubstantiated allegations.

Of course I do not think that poor quality of care of the elderly is justifiable. If improvements are needed, of course they must be made- as I say in the piece. However I think this is a sensationalist report with an agenda that is separate from that of improving the welfare of the elderly and more to do with EHRC Empire building. The evidence that they cite is anecdotal and generally too vague to provide a real framework for effective decision making and resource allocation.

So I deplore several things- 1) that the administration of the system of personal care for the elderly seems to need some serious work. 2) that some unrelated Quango thinks that such alleged lapses count as the moral equal of torture and therefore falls into their overly broad remit will do anything but impede any attempt to investigate and repair the situation.

This report is shrill and alarmist and it serves a highly political agenda- not a genuine human rights agenda at all. That politicization, I repeat, undermines the very real challenges to Human Rights elsewhere across the UK.

As for your crack about bankers, well that- I hope you concede- is a bit cheap, apart from anything else, I have been involved in various Human Rights issues since my school days.

Well paid quango-crats seeking to highlight an alleged problem, to which by improbable co-incidence, they are the happy solution makes me want to reach for my revolver.

Popular posts from this blog

Trump and Brexit are the Pearl Harbor and the Fall of Singapore in Russia's Hybrid war against the West.

In December 1941, Imperial Japan launched a surprise attack on the United States at Pearl Harbor. After the subsequent declaration of war, within three days, the Japanese had sunk the British warships, HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse, and the rapid Japanese attack led to the surrender of Hong Kong on Christmas Day 1941 and the fall of Singapore only two months after Pearl Harbor. These were the opening blows in the long war of the Pacific that cost over 30,000,000 lives and was only ended with the detonations above Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

"History doesn't often repeat itself, but it rhymes" is an aphorism attributed to Mark Twain, and in a way it seems quite appropriate when we survey the current scene. 

In 1941, Imperial Japan, knowing its own weakness, chose a non-conventional form of war, the surprise attack. Since the end of his first Presidential term, Vladimir Putin, knowing Russia's weakness, has also chosen non-conventional ways to promote his domestic powe…

The American National nightmare becomes a global nightmare

It is a basic contention of this blog that Donald J Trump is not fit for office.

A crooked real estate developer with a dubious past and highly questionable finances. he has systematically lied his way into financial or other advantage. His personal qualities include vulgarity, sexual assault allegations and fraudulent statements on almost every subject. 

He lost the popular vote by nearly three million votes.

He has, of course, been under criminal investigation practically since before he took the oath of office. The indictment of some of closest advisers is just the beginning. His track record suggests that in due course there is no action he will not take, whether illegal or unconstitutional in order to derail his own inevitable impeachment and the indictments that must surely follow the successful investigation of Robert Mueller into his connections with Russia.

However, all of that is a matter for the American people. 

It is also a matter for the American people that Trump is cheating…

The rumbling financial markets

Security specialists use a variety of ways to address the risks that they face: and these risk assessments are made in the certain knowledge that the actors in the system hold only incomplete information. Although much mocked at the time, Donald Rumsfeld’s categorization of “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns”, is now generally recognized as a succinct summery of his strategic quandaries.
By contrast, actors in the financial markets have a more sanguine assessment of the risks they deal with: they divide them into two kinds of risk: quantifiable and unquantifiable. Unquantifiable risk is not generally considered, since there is usually no financial profit that can be made except from pure supposition. Therefore for the purposes of the financial markets, any given event is priced relative to its level of probability, that is to say its quantifiable risk. 
Depending on the market, higher levels of risk generally carry higher prices, lower levels generally lower prices. Clearly such an…