good days dude…….nothing like a country on its arse to bring out the best of the working underclasses I was a skin myself liked punk mod and metal music and all though but skin was my religion
Being told by unelected UK and foreign courts that his Minsters cannot proceed with an elected government-made policy ..
Reducing migration levels was a promise .. Increasing out of control record levels are a spectacular failure.
that seems to be the way parliament is going Boris was elected Liz wasnt Rishi wasnt George wasnt.......... we now have a classic GE COMING UP .... GB never won an election! Liz didnt have a chance to! If Rishi if he doesnt will be the first this century to be acting PM! Last GE his majority was slightly less labours was almost 7% down and Liabilities was a 7% gain! RS maj: 27,000! on a near 70% turnout!
It's worse than spectacular failure. The government love the public concentrating on the boats. It takes away scrutiny of the actual numbers on immigration. 600,000 net moved here last year. And we wonder why there's a housing shortage.
But hey, inflation is coming down, although the thing that affects tens of millions, (along with interest rates and high energy costs) is that food prices are still around 30% higher than 2 years ago.
Another wef puppet brought in David Cameron as he wants to give more of taxpayers away. Remind me who these feckers work for. Unelected him and Sunak and wef backed.
Unelected UK courts? We don't elect any judges in this country, and nor should we. The judiciary must be independent of the government of the day, otherwise how can they hold them to account when they propose breaking UK law, as their Rwanda scheme does?
So we can't send illegals to Rwanda as the courts say so. And now the UN are having a go at us for jailing two Just Stop Oil protestors who caused gridlock at the Dartford Crossing, condemning it, and calling it too severe a punishment as the combined sentence is 5 years. Tell that to the thousands who were caught up in it and you won't get any criticism from them or all the other nuisances they've caused. Shame the same law isn't applied to all those carrying hate banners on our streets and climbing over war memorials while the Police stand idly by. What a country !
We could send migrants to Rwanda - it just has to be done according to the laws of our country. There's no point in having a go at judges - all they do is interpret the law. Laws are mainly made by legislators - MPs. The police and the courts can't do anything if laws are not broken. One person's "hate banner" is another person's "freedom banner" so that view is generally quite subjective.
One person's "hate banner" is another person's "freedom banner" so that view is generally quite subjective. A hate banner is a hate banner when it's calling for Jihad or is anti Semitic and it should be dealt with by the Police. All it's doing is enabling those who carry such banners to carry on regardless, knowing there won't be any reprisals for their actions.
Yes, if it's anti-Semitic or it's calling for violence then it is indeed a hate banner. But to imply that those marching for a ceasefire in Gaza are participating in "hate marches", as Braverman has, is completely wrong. On the Rwanda issue, there is a very simple solution and one which I'm flabbergasted that our government hasn't considered. In 2021, Macron offered to build a processing centre outside Calais for migrants to the UK, staffed by UK Border Force people. They could decide upon asylum claims before migrants even set foot in the UK. Once established, if anyone attempts to cross by small boat then they would be immediately shipped back to Calais for their claim to be processed. It's a win for us in the UK, and it's a win for the French who are thoroughly cheesed off with multiple encampments of migrants scattered across their northern coastline. It's farcical that our government hasn't taken up this offer - it's almost as if they want the boats to carry on coming so that they can showboat about their expensive, failed Rwanda policy.
I was making a joke about the irony. The supreme court used evidence provided by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. A United Nations that resettles refugees in .. Rwanda.
You were indeed, I should have read your comment more closely. There is a difference with the UN resettling refugees in Rwanda - it's a voluntary, not compulsory scheme.
As Bluebaldee said laws are made by parliament, the courts just uphold those laws, if they want the laws changed change them through parliament, it’s not difficult. As for the UN objecting to the sentence given out they felt it wasn’t inline with previous cases. What I found ironic was the judge was a woman, had the suffragettes not used similar tactics she wouldn’t be in a position to make the judgement.
