|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 5, 2023 16:26:23 GMT
The point I'm making when it 'suits' the establishment meaning serving government or cross party, they can work 'together' to achieve instant bills, whereas the illegal migrant is far more of a crisis than Brexit ever was, but we don't see any of these 'emergency bills' being passed.
They are talking about September and beyond, by September there will be at least another 50,000 illegal boat crossings, this is a 'national emergency' that needs emergency cross party support and backing, just like they all collude to push the Benn act through.
This is what I'm highlighting, you still aren't getting it. The serving government cannot as you put it 'achieve instant bills' by which I believe you to mean get draft legislation enacted. The government cannot force parliament to work with them. You might think illegal immigration is a national emergency that needs to be depoliticised with all parties working together to come up with a solution however there is no consensus on how to do that. The government has put forward some very bold draft legislation, which is forcing the issue to a head, but unsurprisingly has triggered a lot of debate. Well most of us think it's a national security crisis when tens of thousands of illegal migrants maybe even terrorist among them are invading our shores, we know this government can put emergency measures in place including lockdowns, the powers are there if they need them, just like Covid lockdows and other emergency measures. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 5, 2023 16:31:00 GMT
In 1968 the Labour government rushed the Commonwealth Immigration Bill through Parliament, which removed the right of Ugandan Asians to settle in Britain, in three days.
I read today that the Illegal Immigrants Bill, which had its first reading on 7th March, will not now reach the statute book until September, at the very earliest if then.
Why so long?
...how many Human Rights Lawyers were there in 1968? That's an interesting point; the answer is of course none, at least not called as such.
It's also interesting that it was the self-styled architect of the 1998 Human Rights Act, Anthony Lester later ennobled as Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who took the Heath government to Strasbourg over the plight of the Ugandan Asians. He won the case and the government was forced to modify the 1968 Act eventually enabling every Ugandan Asian with a British passport to come to Britain if they wished as of course 30,000 of them did.
It's Lord Lester who we need to thank for the presence of Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, who James Delingpole has described as 'the most annoying woman on the planet'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 5, 2023 16:34:17 GMT
...how many Human Rights Lawyers were there in 1968? That's an interesting point; the answer is of course none, at not called such.
It's also interesting that it was the self-styled architect of the 1998 Human Rights Act, Anthony Lester later ennobled as Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who took the Heath government to Strasbourg over the plight of the Ugandan Asians. He won the case and the government was forced to modify the 1968 Act eventually enabling every Ugandan Asian with a British passport to come to Britain if they wished as of course 30,000 of them did.
It's Lord Lester who we need to thank for the presence of Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, who James Delingpole has described as 'the most annoying woman on the planet'.
Now let me think, who just happened to be Prime Minister in 1998 .... LOL |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 5, 2023 16:35:06 GMT
The point I'm making when it 'suits' the establishment meaning serving government or cross party, they can work 'together' to achieve instant bills, whereas the illegal migrant is far more of a crisis than Brexit ever was, but we don't see any of these 'emergency bills' being passed.
They are talking about September and beyond, by September there will be at least another 50,000 illegal boat crossings, this is a 'national emergency' that needs emergency cross party support and backing, just like they all collude to push the Benn act through.
This is what I'm highlighting, you still aren't getting it. The serving government cannot as you put it 'achieve instant bills' by which I believe you to mean get draft legislation enacted. The government cannot force parliament to work with them. You might think illegal immigration is a national emergency that needs to be depoliticised with all parties working together to come up with a solution however there is no consensus on how to do that. The government has put forward some very bold draft legislation, which is forcing the issue to a head, but unsurprisingly has triggered a lot of debate. There may ne no consensus in Parliamnet as regards how to do it, there certainly appears to be a growing consensus in the country that many Parliamentarians are quite content to see our country inundated illegally with young foreign men, most of whom it is as plain as the nose on one's face are economic migrants not escaping high levels of persecution and danger but just seeking better opportunities. It can be seen that this process will be ongoing for many years as populations in Africa and elsewhere grow and unrest becomes the norm. We cannot save the whole world and if this progresses for decades, and it certainly seems it could, then there will be no country to offer asylum as it will be fraught with its own multitude of petty little generational feuds as history shows only too clearly. They could talk about it for years, and it looks as if they will. Better to be bold now and row back, than fritter about and be sorry later as we will undoubtedly be. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jun 5, 2023 16:42:52 GMT
Just look how quickly they were passing bills when we were leaving the EU, they were pushing bills through in hours not days or months.
To sabotage Brexit.
Who are they? Have you got an example? ^^^ |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 5, 2023 16:44:37 GMT
Just look how quickly they were passing bills when we were leaving the EU, they were pushing bills through in hours not days or months.
To sabotage Brexit.
Who are they? Have you got an example? ^^^ Who, what, where why???
We are fed up with lefties being dense.
You work it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jun 5, 2023 16:45:40 GMT
That's an interesting point; the answer is of course none, at not called such.
It's also interesting that it was the self-styled architect of the 1998 Human Rights Act, Anthony Lester later ennobled as Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who took the Heath government to Strasbourg over the plight of the Ugandan Asians. He won the case and the government was forced to modify the 1968 Act eventually enabling every Ugandan Asian with a British passport to come to Britain if they wished as of course 30,000 of them did.
It's Lord Lester who we need to thank for the presence of Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, who James Delingpole has described as 'the most annoying woman on the planet'.
Now let me think, who just happened to be Prime Minister in 1998 .... LOL Someone with respect for legal procedures, obviously ...LOL |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Jun 5, 2023 16:47:40 GMT
This is what I'm highlighting, you still aren't getting it. The serving government cannot as you put it 'achieve instant bills' by which I believe you to mean get draft legislation enacted. The government cannot force parliament to work with them. You might think illegal immigration is a national emergency that needs to be depoliticised with all parties working together to come up with a solution however there is no consensus on how to do that. The government has put forward some very bold draft legislation, which is forcing the issue to a head, but unsurprisingly has triggered a lot of debate. Well most of us think it's a national security crisis when tens of thousands of illegal migrants maybe even terrorist among them are invading our shores, we know this government can put emergency measures in place including lockdowns, the powers are there if they need them, just like Covid lockdows and other emergency measures. That is a very different conversation however an interesting one so lets follow this new thread. In certain circumstances the government does have so called 'emergency powers' however these powers are still set out in primary legislation that has been enacted by parliament. For instance, in your Covid example, the government were utilising emergency powers as set out in The Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, and additional emergency powers were established by The Coronavirus Act 2020 What emergency measures do you think the government should put in place and what act(s) of parliament grants the government the power to implement them without the introduction of additional primary legislation? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jun 5, 2023 16:47:56 GMT
Who are they? Have you got an example? ^^^ Who, what, where why???
We are fed up with lefties being dense.
You work it out.
Reasonable people are getting very fed up of the unevidenced trash posted by Righties. As you have been previously informed. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 5, 2023 16:49:51 GMT
Now let me think, who just happened to be Prime Minister in 1998 .... LOL Someone with respect for legal procedures, obviously ...LOL Yes and who's Mrs was also a Human Rights QC, who had her own company the Matrix Chambers specialising in .... yes you've got it Human Rights Laws ... LOL |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Jun 5, 2023 16:51:08 GMT
...how many Human Rights Lawyers were there in 1968? That's an interesting point; the answer is of course none, at least not called as such.
It's also interesting that it was the self-styled architect of the 1998 Human Rights Act, Anthony Lester later ennobled as Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who took the Heath government to Strasbourg over the plight of the Ugandan Asians. He won the case and the government was forced to modify the 1968 Act eventually enabling every Ugandan Asian with a British passport to come to Britain if they wished as of course 30,000 of them did.
It's Lord Lester who we need to thank for the presence of Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, who James Delingpole has described as 'the most annoying woman on the planet'.
A good example of the folly of rushing legislation through parliament without allowing time for proper scrutiny and considered debate. Maybe you've just answered your own question. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 5, 2023 16:56:17 GMT
That's an interesting point; the answer is of course none, at not called such.
It's also interesting that it was the self-styled architect of the 1998 Human Rights Act, Anthony Lester later ennobled as Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who took the Heath government to Strasbourg over the plight of the Ugandan Asians. He won the case and the government was forced to modify the 1968 Act eventually enabling every Ugandan Asian with a British passport to come to Britain if they wished as of course 30,000 of them did.
It's Lord Lester who we need to thank for the presence of Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, who James Delingpole has described as 'the most annoying woman on the planet'.
Now let me think, who just happened to be Prime Minister in 1998 .... LOL
If memory serves he was married to Cherie Booth QC, one of the founding members of Matrix Chambers, the original HR specialists. Jolly good timing what!
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jun 5, 2023 16:58:15 GMT
Someone with respect for legal procedures, obviously ...LOL Yes and who's Mrs was also a Human Rights QC, who had her own company the Matrix Chambers specialising in .... yes you've got it Human Rights Laws ... LOL Maybe you should look up Human Rights Laws, at least you might then be able to put forward a reasoned point. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 5, 2023 16:58:33 GMT
Well most of us think it's a national security crisis when tens of thousands of illegal migrants maybe even terrorist among them are invading our shores, we know this government can put emergency measures in place including lockdowns, the powers are there if they need them, just like Covid lockdows and other emergency measures. That is a very different conversation however an interesting one so lets follow this new thread. In certain circumstances the government does have so called 'emergency powers' however these powers are still set out in primary legislation that has been enacted by parliament. For instance, in your Covid example, the government were utilising emergency powers as set out in The Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, and additional emergency powers were established by The Coronavirus Act 2020 What emergency measures do you think the government should put in place and what act(s) of parliament grants the government the power to implement them without the introduction of additional primary legislation? They have emergency powers under the Terrorism act, and they only have to suspect ONE illegal migrant of being a potential terrorist and they can bring in emergency powers.
The Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism, both in and outside of the UK, as the use or threat of one or more of the actions listed below, and where they are designed to influence the government, or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public. The use or threat must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.
The specific actions included are:
serious violence against a person;
serious damage to property;
endangering a person's life (other than that of the person committing the action);
creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; and action designed to seriously interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
Some of the main provisions:
Section 1 extends the offence of inviting support for a proscribed organisation in section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to cover expressions of support that are reckless as to whether they will encourage others to support the organisation;
Section 2 clarifies that the existing offence in section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 of displaying in a public place an image which arouses reasonable suspicion that the person is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation, covers the display of images online (including of a photograph taken in a private place);
Section 3 updates the offence in section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 of obtaining information likely to be useful to a terrorist to cover terrorist material that is just viewed or streamed over the internet, rather than downloaded to form a permanent record;
Section 4 provides for a new offence of entering or remaining in an area outside the United Kingdom that has been designated in regulations by the Secretary of State in order to protect the public from a risk of terrorism;
Section 6 confers extra-territorial jurisdiction on a number of further offences to ensure that individuals abroad can be prosecuted for having encouraged or carried out acts of terror overseas;
Section 7 increases to 15 years’ imprisonment the maximum penalty for certain preparatory terrorism offences; and
Section 18 amends the Terrorism Act 2000 so that the pre-charge detention clock can be paused when a detained person is transferred from police custody to hospital.
**Note section 4.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 5, 2023 17:16:30 GMT
Someone with respect for legal procedures, obviously ...LOL Yes and who's Mrs was also a Human Rights QC, who had her own company the Matrix Chambers specialising in .... yes you've got it Human Rights Laws ... LOL And who entered politics with nothing yet left a multi-millionaire....  |
|
