|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 17, 2022 10:23:42 GMT
Better yet, empower the Home Secretary to implement any operational procedures necessary to deal with asylum seekers and other unwanted foreigners, short of causing physical harm. Then Parliament won't have to dot every i and the Courts won't have any grounds to interfere.
The liberal sacred cow of 'universal' rights has to be led to the slaughter sooner rather than later.
Well quite. Why bother Parliament with minor detail - just put the Home Secretary above the law. Or, put another way, re-align the law in conformance with actual present-day realities. It's already the case that the Home Secretary has been given special powers to deal with terrorist suspects and others, so why not asylum seekers too?
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Oct 17, 2022 10:24:03 GMT
Then why was it put before the High Court? Ambulance-chasing lawyers eager for another payday. Paid for by you, the taxpayer.
Yes we always end up paying |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Oct 17, 2022 10:26:22 GMT
Well quite. Why bother Parliament with minor detail - just put the Home Secretary above the law. Or, put another way, re-align the law in conformance with actual present-day realities. It's already the case that the Home Secretary has been given special powers to deal with terrorist suspects and others, so why not asylum seekers too?
Yes, something has to be done to deal with the large numbers of people entering the UK Unlawfully new stronger legislation needs to be put in place |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Oct 17, 2022 10:36:33 GMT
Well quite. Why bother Parliament with minor detail - just put the Home Secretary above the law. Or, put another way, re-align the law in conformance with actual present-day realities. It's already the case that the Home Secretary has been given special powers to deal with terrorist suspects and others, so why not asylum seekers too?
I must admit I was not aware the Home Secretary had been granted carte blanche (any operational procedure necessary) to deal with terrorist suspects and others - perhaps you might like to expand. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 17, 2022 10:46:06 GMT
I believe the Terrorism Act and associated legislation enable suspects to be detained without charge for a particular period. As far as others are concerned, the SSHD can revoke citizenship in certain circumstances. I'm sure you could come up with of other examples yourself.
So what would be so revolutionary about allowing special powers to deal with asylum seekers? They are all arrested on arrival anyway so why shouldn't they be searched thoroughly?
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Oct 17, 2022 10:49:20 GMT
When it comes to Terrorism no holds barred, I think some they get here unlawfully may well be part of a Terror Group
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Oct 17, 2022 10:54:52 GMT
I believe the Terrorism Act and associated legislation enable suspects to be detained without charge for a particular period. As far as others are concerned, the SSHD can revoke citizenship in certain circumstances. I'm sure you could come up with of other examples yourself. So what would be so revolutionary about allowing special powers to deal with asylum seekers? They are all arrested on arrival anyway so why shouldn't they be searched thoroughly? Neither example is anything close to 'any operational procedure necessary', as I'm sure you know. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 17, 2022 11:04:16 GMT
Are you vying for Pedant of the Week?
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Oct 17, 2022 11:17:03 GMT
Are you vying for Pedant of the Week? Don't be a clown. You suggested giving the Home Secretary power to put in place any operational procedure necessary. You know and I know there is nothing that compares to that kind of power vested in any executive office to deal with terrorists and/or others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 17, 2022 11:34:19 GMT
You seem to be extraordinarily reluctant to allow powers to be given to deal effectively with asylum seekers without judicial interference. Why is that?
Btw I did suggest procedures 'short of physical harm'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Oct 17, 2022 11:45:56 GMT
You seem to be extraordinarily reluctant to allow powers to be given to deal effectively with asylum seekers without judicial interference. Why is that? Btw I did suggest procedures 'short of physical harm'. I am certainly very reluctant to allow executive power to be exercised without potentially being subject to legal challenge. I am also very reluctant to grant carte blanche executive powers to ministers in dealing with anyone - even asylum seekers. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Oct 17, 2022 13:32:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 27, 2022 5:41:06 GMT
Update: In follow-up to earlier remarks on this topic, it is curious that the judgment from the hearing on October 14th has not been made public. This hearing was intended to determine what needs to be done about the ‘breaches of the duty of candour and what remedies should be granted to these claimants. In the meantime however, the government has complied with the court’s order to place on its website a written version of an order issued at that time. Presumably this is as some form of sanction for the Home Secretary’s failure in her ‘duty of candour’. www.gov.uk/government/publications/high-court-order-on-mobile-phone-policyWith regard to compensation for the claimants (the three asylum seekers whose taxpayer-funded lawyers brought the case on their behalf) the Order indicates an agreement has been reached with the Defendant for ‘confidential terms of settlement in relation to damages, just satisfaction and further relief’. It’s not obvious why the terms should need to be confidential since they involve expenditure of public funds. It could be that the sums are so large as to represent a substantial win on the National Lottery for the Claimants. On the other hand the amounts awarded may be so nugatory that for them to be made public would result in severe loss of face for the lawyers involved as well as widespread ridicule that so much expensive legal firepower (eight barristers!) has been concentrated on so farcical a cause.
The betting would seem to be on the former since the Order also includes instructions to the government to “… use all reasonable endeavours to bring to the attention of each person (whether by letter, email, text or message or to known addresses or numbers or otherwise) whom the Defendant believes was subject to a search and/or seizure of a mobile phone, in writing: (i) the Judgment; (ii) this Order; (iii) the statement: “If you have not taken legal advice on your position, you are strongly advised to do so now”.
Kerching!
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 27, 2022 6:42:48 GMT
"2% of the adult male population of Albania had travelled to the UK in small boats" - and the opposition in Parliament want to make the trip easier.. 
|
|
