I was replying to someone who made two pretty serious claims. First that many people on this forum are peed off that the government want to stop illegal immigrants. I invited him to name just one poster, of the many, who's said that. He couldn't back up his claim "Why are so many of you peed off?" He also claimed the opposition, in the House of Commons, has blocked the government's measures to sort out the mess. He couldn't back up that claim either. "It's the opposition that has stopped the conservatives doing it what they REALLY wanted to doover thelast "12 years"" Can you back up your claim that the ECHR has blocked attempts to either prevent illegal immigrants coming here or to send them back? If you're right, and I've missed that, I'd be quite happy to apologise.
The ECHR have certainly issued an order to prevent the deportation of a migrant to Rwanda. https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/echr-confirms-order-stop-deportation-migrant-uk-rwanda-2022-06-14/ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022...w-to-override-echr-after-blocked-deportations I think they were right to do so but they've certainly intervened in the policy.
The court had decided "that the applicant should not be removed until the expiry of a period of three weeks following the delivery of the final domestic decision in the ongoing judicial review proceedings", its ruling said. Interesting. You could argue all they did was delay things until our own UK court made its own conclusion.
If I recall correctly that wasnt a block on this one person being sent to Rwanda, it was a month's delay after which they could've been deported. As far as I know there's nothing stopping the government sending people to Rwanda. As Braverman is a lawyer, and these various measures are produced with a team of top lawyers there should be no problem implementing them.
Yeah, it was a pretty weak intervention but they did get involved. I'm not sure I know enough about the law surrounding these things to say whether they could have done any more.
They clearly don't stand up to much scrutiny, although the High Court passed it. Isn't it a case of various appeals holding it up though? That can hold things up for a long time.
And in other news, undercover footage has emerged of David Attenborough pumping millions of tons of raw sewage directly into a river...
I've no idea what Lineker's in depth views are on immigration, legal or otherwise. I doubt Shearer, Wright or the other pundits who backed him know either ... ... it's therefore just the basic principle of being able to do what Alan Sugar does and have the odd opinion that don't tally exactly with BBC doctrine. Surely, if no BBC employer is allowed to have a different opinion then the public will assume they share them. That's the kind of thing you'd see on Russian or Chinese broadcasting and I don't like it one bit.
I'd say it's quite reasonable that someone should appeal against being sent to Rwanda ... I would What I honestly believe is that Braverman, and her clique, know there'll be appeals at which point they can throw their hands in the air and pass the buck. As soon as the Rwanda scheme was announced many people just rolled their eyes and thought it was a non-starter ... I posted that on here tbf. It's so far cost .millions and Rwanda must be laughing out of their arse.
There's a huge difference between the BBC's supposed impartiality and being a mouthpiece for the regime though. At most this is a case of their rules on impartiality not being applied equally.
I have a suspicion that the whole Rwanda thing was only meant as a threat. If its true that a lot of people arriving here by 'illegal' means are Albanian (and there has to be huge question mark over that) being sent to a country in Central Africa, when you were just trying to get from one European country to another, is a pretty good deterrent.
I agree with you there. I still don't like the idea that the main UK news channel wishes to control what views people can express in their own time. It just doesn't sit well with me tbh. As for deterrents being effective, I can't see much effect.
It's not that uncommon for employers to be unhappy about people posting things that could reflect badly on those employers on their private social media accounts. It's something that I've always thought was quite invasive but it seems to be fairly common. Not that I've ever known anyone who's fallen foul of it.
Any disciplinary action i've heard of is when an employee is either posting the comment via video wearing a uniform/identifying clothing or is using the company name whilst posting it. To be sanctioned for your own views which aren't illegal and when you haven't done any of the above is in my opinion totally out of order.
I'm trying hard not to split hairs here but I think there's a distinction to be made. If Lineker was employed as a civil servant, and posting these comments, I'd agree that would be problematic. I'd also say that, if Lineker was on the BBC news team, he probably shouldn't be posting criticism of the government. But the policy of the government, on immigration, shouldn't automatically be the policy of the BBC and everyone from sports pundits to children's presenters.
Exactly what I believe. Once you sanction Lineker for posting his views on immigration it gives you the right to stop Michael McIntyre posting about the government's stance on nurses pay or the treatment of ex-servicemen. We live in a democracy, not a backwards dictatorship. If the BBC wish to stifle criticism of the government that's a really bad road to go down imo ... ... and that's precisely what they were trying to do with Lineker. It looks like they'll fail and we should all be pleased imo.
Dismissing someone for their social media posts seems draconian to me too but it can be done. This is legal advice from an employment law solicitor: "If the post is not in keeping with the employer’s values, is offensive or sufficiently controversial, then you may be fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. However, the employer should still follow the correct and proper procedure to dismiss you." https://barcankirby.co.uk/can-my-so...ts employers from,that really, it's fair game.
Do you think any of that applies to Lineker. Surely, if his comments aren't in keeping with BBC values that means they're supporting Braverman. And I don't think the comments were particularly offensive or controversial either ... ... if he was saying any foreigners should be banned from coming it might be.
