|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Dec 20, 2022 11:48:49 GMT
Sounds fair enough too. We've got plenty of British islands we could use, which would avoid most legal challenges. We should also opt out of all the Human Rights nonsense while we're at it. You want to get rid of human rights? Well, there's plenty of countries with no human rights for you to try... |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 20, 2022 11:56:16 GMT
Sounds fair enough too. We've got plenty of British islands we could use, which would avoid most legal challenges. We should also opt out of all the Human Rights nonsense while we're at it. You want to get rid of human rights? Well, there's plenty of countries with no human rights for you to try... Yes I was thinking of seeing if we could crowd fund a one way ticket to Iran for Mr Middle |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Dec 20, 2022 11:58:22 GMT
Sometimes I think people say things without thinking through what it means. I believe that this is one of those times.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 20, 2022 11:58:42 GMT
The Rwanda Plan only achieves one thing. It shows how out of touch with public opinion and reality the Tories have become. No matter what anybody says, we simply cannot stop people coming here and there is not much we can do to remove them. The safe routes idea is also stupid as it will make the situation even worse. Unless you think the people who are denied entry will not just hop on a boat anyway lol. Get them processed quickly, and get them working. The numbers are peanuts compared to what we allowed under Freedom of Movement anyway. Have you seen the current numbers of UK homeless? england.shelter.org.uk/media/press_release/274000_people_in_england_are_homeless_with_thousands_more_likely_to_lose_their_homes Just because we let in far too many under FoM does not mean we should let in fake refugees to make our housing issues even worse. |
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Dec 20, 2022 12:10:01 GMT
Ah Nigel the one line wonder... YOU |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Dec 20, 2022 12:31:09 GMT
Sounds fair enough too. We've got plenty of British islands we could use, which would avoid most legal challenges. We should also opt out of all the Human Rights nonsense while we're at it. You want to get rid of human rights? Well, there's plenty of countries with no human rights for you to try... We've always had perfectly adequate human rights in the UK. What we don't need is the farcical money-go-round for lawyers that our current legislation has been allowed to become. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 20, 2022 12:42:06 GMT
You want to get rid of human rights? Well, there's plenty of countries with no human rights for you to try... We've always had perfectly adequate human rights in the UK. What we don't need is the farcical money-go-round for lawyers that our current legislation has been allowed to become. Why not call for updating and modification rather than chance throwing the baby out with etc. ? |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Dec 20, 2022 13:33:46 GMT
You want to get rid of human rights? Well, there's plenty of countries with no human rights for you to try... We've always had perfectly adequate human rights in the UK. What we don't need is the farcical money-go-round for lawyers that our current legislation has been allowed to become. So you don't want to get rid of human rights after all? Thought not! 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Dec 20, 2022 14:11:24 GMT
We've always had perfectly adequate human rights in the UK. What we don't need is the farcical money-go-round for lawyers that our current legislation has been allowed to become. So you don't want to get rid of human rights after all? Thought not! 😂 No, but I do want to clear up the current, farcical situation. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 20, 2022 14:32:55 GMT
You want to get rid of human rights? Well, there's plenty of countries with no human rights for you to try... We've always had perfectly adequate human rights in the UK. . . . BS ^ We had rights on paper but prior to 1998 no ability to get them respected via UK courts so organisation after organisation and government after government ignored them. Feel free to say which of our HRA rights you would take away. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 20, 2022 14:37:03 GMT
Sounds fair enough too. We've got plenty of British islands we could use, which would avoid most legal challenges. We should also opt out of all the Human Rights nonsense while we're at it. You want to get rid of human rights? Well, there's plenty of countries with no human rights for you to try... And the UK is one of them. There is a human right for an individual not to be subject to discrimination by the State on the basis of his race. Yet the UK allows that and enshrines that allowance into law. And do not ask where it is as it is as clear as Waterford crystal that that is what the law says in positive action in the Equality law. Perhaps those who are so keen to protect the rights of foreign interlopers would do well to begin their righteous stance here at home and for UK citizens. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 20, 2022 14:39:26 GMT
Get a sense of proportion Sandy. It might not be a human right to have one but even you know that a questionable criticism of our laws on discrimination is in no way evidence that we have 'no human rights'
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 20, 2022 14:49:53 GMT
Get a sense of proportion Sandy. It might not be a human right to have one but even you know that a questionable criticism of our laws on discrimination is in no way evidence that we have 'no human rights' It is a sense of proportion I seek. The argument runs that there are reasons in history why the human rights of some in the UK should be suspended. All that seems to be said is that there is a current argument why human rights of interlopers should be temporarily suspended as we are finding it difficult to deal with the problem effectively. But no the Human Rights brigade say it must not be so as the human rights are inviolate. Well they are not inviolate as the positive action law clearly displays. There is hypocrisy around. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 20, 2022 14:53:37 GMT
Justice delayed is justice denied. Why does it take so long to decide what should be a clear principle of law? It's taken many months for this judgement and it will now go to multiple appeals, all of which will take months - or maybe even years - in which time many thousands of illegal immigrants will have come into the country. Why can't we make emergency legislation - which overrides any other laws - to halt these people one way or another? The ECHR is a two-step process just like other higher courts. First you have to get leave to enable your case to be heard and then the date is set for the case if leave is granted. The first of these are set for January, so if the ECHR boots it out then there is no higher appeal and we get the green light. Courts do take into account the urgency of the case, so we should expect this to happen pretty fast. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Dec 20, 2022 15:03:59 GMT
Who invented freedom of world movement?
If every country allowed everyone and anyone to just row in to their country and claim asylum the world would be a complete and utter mess.
The reason we have 'legal' processes of entry in every country is to root out the undesirables, otherwise you will end up as the 'dumping ground'.... ringing any bells yet?
|
|
