|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 19, 2023 2:26:06 GMT
I already knew that. It's extremely gratifying. But the SC is basically just the HoL renamed. It has the same titles for its judges, the same jurisdiction, the same procedures as the HoL. Just a spanking new name. LOL, good man. The Supreme Court is not the same as the HoL, oh boy. Sir Jacob Reese-Mogg is very eloquent on the differences of the supreme court and the Lords of Appeal, and what it meant to British law. If you say so, Red. It's not really the case, but have it your way. It's very much a side issue. The important thing is that 'lefty lawyers' already had a strong case. They were able to keep the Rwanda planes on the ground even before the SC gave its opinion. Their case has just quadrupled in strength. I wouldn't put any bets on those planes getting off the ground.
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 19, 2023 2:35:00 GMT
The right stopped respecting the law when they had to defend Boris for trying to subvert Parliament. The Supreme Court found him guilty and they've never forgiven it. Remember this... During lockdown Starmer on the piss with (According to the curry house that delivered the take out, curry for 30+ people) The local police and crime commissioner, who was also a Labour councillor and present at the beer & curry bash, said after a long period of silence that it was within lockdown rules. I mean it's just too hilarious for words. Starmer lied about the number of people present and Raynor lied about being there. But no biggie, it's not half as serious as Boris eating a peice of cake.
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 19, 2023 2:38:49 GMT
LOL, good man. The Supreme Court is not the same as the HoL, oh boy. Sir Jacob Reese-Mogg is very eloquent on the differences of the supreme court and the Lords of Appeal, and what it meant to British law. If you say so, Red. It's not really the case, but have it your way. It's very much a side issue. The important thing is that 'lefty lawyers' already had a strong case. They were able to give the Rwanda planes on the ground even before the SC gave its opinion. Their case has just quadrupled in strength. I wouldn't put any bets on those planes getting off the ground. You may be right, but if you want to avoid serious social disorder in this country, you should be hoping those planes take off.
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 19, 2023 2:39:55 GMT
The right stopped respecting the law when they had to defend Boris for trying to subvert Parliament. The Supreme Court found him guilty and they've never forgiven it. Remember this... During lockdown Starmer on the piss with (According to the curry house that delivered the take out, curry for 30+ people) The local police and crime commissioner, who was also a Labour councillor and present at the beer & curry bash, said after a long period of silence that it was within lockdown rules. I mean it's just too hilarious for words. Starmer lied about the number of people present and Raynor lied about being there. But no biggie, it's not half as serious as Boris eating a peice of cake. It's not immediately obvious what that has to do with the chances of the Rwanda planes ever actually taking to the air, but there's no harm pointing out that the cake wasn't the issue.
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 19, 2023 2:40:53 GMT
If you say so, Red. It's not really the case, but have it your way. It's very much a side issue. The important thing is that 'lefty lawyers' already had a strong case. They were able to give the Rwanda planes on the ground even before the SC gave its opinion. Their case has just quadrupled in strength. I wouldn't put any bets on those planes getting off the ground. You may be right, but if you want to avoid serious social disorder in this country, you should be hoping those planes take off. I don't have a problem with refugees being taken to a safe destination anywhere in the world, just so long as it's within international law.
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 19, 2023 2:45:05 GMT
You may be right, but if you want to avoid serious social disorder in this country, you should be hoping those planes take off. I don't have a problem with refugees being taken to a safe destination anywhere in the world, just so long as it's within international law. Clearly you struggle with the definition of refugee.
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 19, 2023 2:46:12 GMT
Remember this... During lockdown Starmer on the piss with (According to the curry house that delivered the take out, curry for 30+ people) The local police and crime commissioner, who was also a Labour councillor and present at the beer & curry bash, said after a long period of silence that it was within lockdown rules. I mean it's just too hilarious for words. Starmer lied about the number of people present and Raynor lied about being there. But no biggie, it's not half as serious as Boris eating a peice of cake. It's not immediately obvious what that has to do with the chances of the Rwanda planes ever actually taking to the air, but there's no harm pointing out that the cake wasn't the issue. It's not immediately obvious why you're responding to this?
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 19, 2023 2:46:59 GMT
I don't have a problem with refugees being taken to a safe destination anywhere in the world, just so long as it's within international law. Clearly you struggle with the definition of refugee. I know what a refugee is for the purposes of the law. If you have your own pet idea of what a refugee is, I don't mind.
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 19, 2023 2:47:34 GMT
It's not immediately obvious what that has to do with the chances of the Rwanda planes ever actually taking to the air, but there's no harm pointing out that the cake wasn't the issue. It's not immediately obvious why you're responding to this? No. Good point, well made, Red.
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 19, 2023 2:47:56 GMT
Clearly you struggle with the definition of refugee. I know what a refugee is for the purposes of the law. If you have your own pet idea of what a refugee is, I don't mind. Then you will know the criminals landing on Kent beaches are illegal immigrants.
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 19, 2023 2:51:40 GMT
I know what a refugee is for the purposes of the law. If you have your own pet idea of what a refugee is, I don't mind. Then you will know the criminals landing on Kent beaches are illegal immigrants. It's only early Tuesday morning, but I'm quite sure I've had this discussion at least 10 times already this week. Is there any reason to think that either of us has changed our position since the last time we had this discussion? If not, maybe we could save ourselves the trouble.
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 19, 2023 2:54:25 GMT
Then you will know the criminals landing on Kent beaches are illegal immigrants. It's only early Tuesday morning, but I'm quite sure I've had this discussion at least 10 times already this week. Is there any reason to think that either of us has changed our position since the last time we had this discussion? Mmmm, I think not. Unless France is at war and the criminals crossing the channel have suddenly become 'refugees'...
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 19, 2023 2:58:37 GMT
It's only early Tuesday morning, but I'm quite sure I've had this discussion at least 10 times already this week. Is there any reason to think that either of us has changed our position since the last time we had this discussion? Mmmm, I think not. Unless France is at war and the criminals crossing the channel have suddenly become 'refugees'... The law is the problem. It just doesn't support your definition of what a refugee is. At least, the definition in international law doesn't. Domestic law's fine. The Government recently redefined what a refugee is and made those arriving from France liable to punishment. Here's the problem, though: Boris Johnson was in power the last time there was a conflict between domestic law and international law. The international courts told Johnson he couldn't send the refugees to Rwanda and he didn't dare disobey them. Now, if Johnson didn't have the balls to disobey the international courts, do you really think little Rishi Sunak will?
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 19, 2023 3:09:31 GMT
Mmmm, I think not. Unless France is at war and the criminals crossing the channel have suddenly become 'refugees'... The law is the problem. It just doesn't support your definition of what a refugee is. At least, the definition in international law doesn't. Domestic law's fine. The Government recently redefined what a refugee is and made those arriving from France liable to punishment. Here's the problem, though: Boris Johnson was in power the last time there was a conflict between domestic law and international law. The international courts told Johnson he couldn't send the refugees to Rwanda and he didn't dare disobey them. Now, if Johnson didn't have the balls to disobey the international courts, do you really think little Rishi Sunak will? Lets not be silly, law penned in the shadow of WW2 when there were millions of displaced people in Europe is quite clearly not fit for purpose today.
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 19, 2023 3:13:07 GMT
The law is the problem. It just doesn't support your definition of what a refugee is. At least, the definition in international law doesn't. Domestic law's fine. The Government recently redefined what a refugee is and made those arriving from France liable to punishment. Here's the problem, though: Boris Johnson was in power the last time there was a conflict between domestic law and international law. The international courts told Johnson he couldn't send the refugees to Rwanda and he didn't dare disobey them. Now, if Johnson didn't have the balls to disobey the international courts, do you really think little Rishi Sunak will? Lets not be silly, law penned in the shadow of WW2 when there were millions of displaced people in Europe is quite clearly not fit for purpose today. It was fit enough to keep the Rwanda plane on the airport tarmac last time there was a conflict between domestic and international law. It has become a good deal fitter following the Supreme Court's finding that Rwanda is unsafe. Don't worry, though. Little Rishi will undoubtedly do what Johnson didn't dare do, and face down the international courts. Nothing to worry about, Red.
|
|