Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[Danishfurniturelover]

Probably the one's who have gone back voluntary with £3,500 in their pockets

Yep be back in a few months to pocket there next pay out with plenty of help from the Liberal benefactor lawyers. Lawyers we are paying as tax payers because they set up as charities we pay.

This brick might of convinced people 10 or 20 years ago but the public are clued up to this brick now.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Yep, thats where I was with it. I am all for the removal or illegal immigrants who have no case for genuine asylum, I don't need to see it on video because I want to celebrate it or because I am down a Liam Tuff level of intellect where I don't believe stuff happens

It's a scheme to make lawyers richer. The ones kicked out will be back to the cashpoint in a month or two ably helped by vile left wing lawyers who sure as hell ain't doing it for free.

 

[Grays_1890]

It's a scheme to make lawyers richer. The ones kicked out will be back to the cashpoint in a month or two ably helped by vile left wing lawyers who sure as hell ain't doing it for free.

Truth is, no one knows the answer to dealing with the crisis though. We can all howl at the moon about it and I agree there is a degree of fixing that needs happening, but I don't know what the answer is and I certainly have not read a viable option elsewhere on here or other platforms

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Truth is, no one knows the answer to dealing with the crisis though. We can all howl at the moon about it and I agree there is a degree of fixing that needs happening, but I don't know what the answer is and I certainly have not read a viable option elsewhere on here or other platforms

It's very easy to deal with it. You turn back the boats.

Sadly in doing so, some would capsize and a couple of people drown. But that would stop the boats and on pure numbers of deaths would be far less then the people dying from drowning if they were continue to come.

On a pure numbers game it's the most humane thing to do. Then you could could give asylum and full residency to an amount already here, say at a manageable level of 50,000 a year. But the very liberal lawyers who run this country would not like that as it would cost them to lose out on a lot of money.

Probably hit labour donations in the pocket as well.

 

[markysimmo]

Truth is, no one knows the answer to dealing with the crisis though. We can all howl at the moon about it and I agree there is a degree of fixing that needs happening, but I don't know what the answer is and I certainly have not read a viable option elsewhere on here or other platforms

How about realising we're an island and simply say no thanks

 

[Grays_1890]

How about realising we're an island and simply say no thanks

I mean I agree, but thats a statement not a solution

 

[Grays_1890]

It's very easy to deal with it. You turn back the boats.

Sadly in doing so, some would capsize and a couple of people drown. But that would stop the boats and on pure numbers of deaths would be far less then the people dying from drowning if they were continue to come.

On a pure numbers game it's the most humane thing to do. Then you could could give asylum and full residency to an amount already here, say at a manageable level of 50,000 a year. But the very liberal lawyers who run this country would not like that as it would cost them to lose out on a lot of money.

Probably hit labour donations in the pocket as well.

Which is fine if legal to do so.........problem is despite Tice claiming we can do it legally as he has a report to say so, he is unwilling to share it.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Which is fine if legal to do so.........problem is despite Tice claiming we can do it legally as he has a report to say so, he is unwilling to share it.

Withdraw from the court of human rights which again is now just a self interest group to feather the nest of lawyers.

See all these groups were taken over and hijacked by lawyers out to make money and the guise of being caring and kind which is flimflam. All it results in is the average voter getting fudged off then ending up being a complete backlash and voting for extreme right wing candidates.

That is what I think happened in America and here in Europe. I don't know one person who thinks we should home asylum seekers. Even Farage has come out several times and said we should, but it's the numbers and the cost of it. Also why not go to camps round the world like Cameron suggested and get families and women so we keep families from war torn regions together. Would seem the best thing to do as women are often the most victimised in those countries.

 

[Grays_1890]

Withdraw from the court of human rights which again is now just a self interest group to feather the nest of lawyers.

See all these groups were taken over and hijacked by lawyers out to make money and the guise of being caring and kind which is flimflam. All it results in is the average voter getting fudged off then ending up being a complete backlash and voting for extreme right wing candidates.

That is what I think happened in America and here in Europe. I don't know one person who thinks we should home asylum seekers. Even Farage has come out several times and said we should, but it's the numbers and the cost of it. Also why not go to camps round the world like Cameron suggested and get families and women so we keep families from war torn regions together. Would seem the best thing to do as women are often the most victimised in those countries.

But, wasn't the issue that most Human Right cases are not heard by them but by UK judges applying UK human rights law? Only a fraction of cases reach the European Court? All well and good us changing the UK law, but beyond immigration I am not sure its a good look for peoples general protection to remove any kind of human rights law that also protects you and me, GHod help us.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

But, wasn't the issue that most Human Right cases are not heard by them but by UK judges applying UK human rights law? Only a fraction of cases reach the European Court? All well and good us changing the UK law, but beyond immigration I am not sure its a good look for peoples general protection to remove any kind of human rights law that also protects you and me, GHod help us.

Well one of the few things I agreed with Boris on, his view on UK judges.

We need to tighten the law to extent that they can't come up with their own perverse view of the law.

Human rights laws are not needed. Things are covered by normal laws. If I break into your home I'm breaking the law. Human right laws have been used by leftie lawyers to push their own agendas and fear monger which seems to have worked on you, for you to finish your post,GHod help us.

 

[Grays_1890]

Well one of the few things I agreed with Boris on, his view on UK judges.

We need to tighten the law to extent that they can't come up with their own perverse view of the law.

Human rights laws are not needed. Things are covered by normal laws. If I break into your home I'm breaking the law. Human right laws have been used by leftie lawyers to push their own agendas and fear monger which seems to have worked on you, for you to finish your post,GHod help us.

I think you are laying on the righty v lefty stuff abit heavy TBH

House breaking is nothing to do with human rights law, its a common law. We absolutely need laws that protect ours and others human rights. Laws such as a right to privacy which doesn't exist in UK Law so 100% I am grateful its covered by Human Right laws. Powers of freedom which are covered by human right laws. Freedoms to hold the press and authorities to account, including the police force, we have seen how sinister some acts have been even with those rights, you take them away and you are left with nothing.

Has nothing to do with lawyers getting rich, human right laws protect our very being

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

I think you are laying on the righty v lefty stuff abit heavy TBH

House breaking is nothing to do with human rights law, its a common law. We absolutely need laws that protect ours and others human rights. Laws such as a right to privacy which doesn't exist in UK Law so 100% I am grateful its covered by Human Right laws. Powers of freedom which are covered by human right laws. Freedoms to hold the press and authorities to account, including the police force, we have seen how sinister some acts have been even with those rights, you take them away and you are left with nothing.

Has nothing to do with lawyers getting rich, human right laws protect our very being

How you react to someone breaking into your house has everything to do with human right laws because if criminals are hurt by people defending their homes they hide behind their human rights when they should not have been breaking into people's homes in the first place.

The are laws in all areas protecting people. Abuse gay or black people and your breaking discrimination laws and rightly so.

It is only people that are extreme in their views like you always siding with the criminal in thinking they are being even handed that think human right laws are needed. They are not and they are absolutely used by lawyers to get rich on. I know of countless examples from my wife who works with the prison services.

It is a huge industry that is making people if you can call lawyers that, millions.

 

[Grays_1890]

How you react to someone breaking into your house has everything to do with human right laws because if criminals are hurt by people defending their homes they hide behind their human rights when they should not have been breaking into people's homes in the first place.

Ok thats fine but thats not what you originally argued about, thats the perpetrator breaking the law, what your subsequently arguing for is the same as me, human right laws that gives you added powers of protection.

The are laws in all areas protecting people. Abuse gay or black people and your breaking discrimination laws and rightly so.

It is only people that are extreme in their views like you always siding with the criminal in thinking they are being even handed that think human right laws are needed. They are not and they are absolutely used by lawyers to get rich on. I know of countless examples from my wife who works with the prison services.

Maybe not reading that correctly but I don't always side with the criminal? I assume you are talking about people that do.

Normal criminal law gets massively rich off the back of the law, I am not sure thats the argument for not having the law of the land either. Those people get paid a fortune because the burden of the job and rightly so.

Ultimately we all live in a world where human right laws make our lives much more protected than they would without them. I am more than happy to live under the protection of that umbrella, I think its massively naive the think we would be anywhere near better off with human right laws

 

[markysimmo]

 

[markysimmo]

Interesting account to follow, shows the utter waste and fraud of so many Govt contracts in the UK

x.com

x.com

 

[Kompakted]

Just on public sector waste and incompetence just seen the Met have lost a major court case today.

Looks like they overreacted massively to the whole Sarah Everard case and set up a task force to find and sack officers they could find any adverse information on.

In the case they lost they sacked an officer when they found he'd been accused of *struggle cuddle* twice. On both occasions the accusations were dismissed as no case to answer after investigations.

Surprise surprise the Met have been told by the court that you can't sack people in those circumstances and they're now facing a barrage of legal costs.

You really do have to wonder.....

 

[Craig_J]

Just on public sector waste and incompetence just seen the Met have lost a major court case today.

Looks like they overreacted massively to the whole Sarah Everard case and set up a task force to find and sack officers they could find any adverse information on.

In the case they lost they sacked an officer when they found he'd been accused of *struggle cuddle* twice. On both occasions the accusations were dismissed as no case to answer after investigations.

Surprise surprise the Met have been told by the court that you can't sack people in those circumstances and they're now facing a barrage of legal costs.

You really do have to wonder.....

Learning from a case such as that and setting up a task force so that they eliminate the threat of it happening again is an "overreaction"?

What exactly consitutes a "struggle cuddle"?

The Met Chief himself has lamented he was not able to do more.

I don't think picturing a world where there's no one accussed of sexual misconduct or *struggle cuddle* in our police force is a Utopian aim.

But some may disagree.