This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
General Election 2017
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 CambridgeEagle  Sydenham 26 May 17 4.50pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
The nasty leader of the nasty party. Strong and stable unlawful actions.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| hedgehog50 Croydon 26 May 17 4.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
The nasty leader of the nasty party. Strong and stable unlawful actions. Appalling and ridiculous decision by the court. A country should be able to allow or deny entry to whoever it wants.
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 26 May 17 5.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
Appalling and ridiculous decision by the court. A country should be able to allow or deny entry to whoever it wants. The court upholds the law it doesn't make it. What in your expert legal opinion did the courts do wrong?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| hedgehog50 Croydon 26 May 17 5.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
The court upholds the law it doesn't make it. What in your expert legal opinion did the courts do wrong? My point was not whether the courts got the law right or wrong. My point was that a country should be able to allow in or not allow in whoever they want for whatever reason. I'll write to my MP and ask what she is doing about this appalling state of affairs. [How's your expertise in British history coming along by the way.] Edited by hedgehog50 (26 May 2017 5.58pm)
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 26 May 17 6.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
My point was not whether the courts got the law right or wrong. My point was that a country should be able to allow in or not allow in whoever they want for whatever reason. I'll write to my MP and ask what she is doing about this appalling state of affairs. [How's your expertise in British history coming along by the way.] The law is the law and applies to everyone even if they are home secretary or even dear leader. The law is international law and has been the case since 1951. The point is that May is cruel and has acted unlawfully. This is a telling counterpoint with her allowing Libyan extremists to go back and forth between the UK and Libya to fight with extremist groups against Gaddafi. Dangerous, cruel, weak and wobbly and thinks she's above the law.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| hedgehog50 Croydon 26 May 17 6.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
The law is the law and applies to everyone even if they are home secretary or even dear leader. The law is international law and has been the case since 1951. The point is that May is cruel and has acted unlawfully. This is a telling counterpoint with her allowing Libyan extremists to go back and forth between the UK and Libya to fight with extremist groups against Gaddafi. Dangerous, cruel, weak and wobbly and thinks she's above the law. The government is quite rightly challenging this 'judgement' and has indicated it will seek leave to appeal to the supreme court and, pending that decision, is seeking a stay on the order that it must reconsider the group’s position.
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 26 May 17 6.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
The government is quite rightly challenging this 'judgement' and has indicated it will seek leave to appeal to the supreme court and, pending that decision, is seeking a stay on the order that it must reconsider the group’s position. Being cruel and wasting tax payers money just to try and save face. If they lose I hope The Dear Leader personally pays for the costs.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 26 May 17 7.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
Being cruel and wasting tax payers money just to try and save face. If they lose I hope The Dear Leader personally pays for the costs. Will you remortgage on June 7, 'just to be safe'?
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| hedgehog50 Croydon 26 May 17 7.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
Being cruel and wasting tax payers money just to try and save face. If they lose I hope The Dear Leader personally pays for the costs. 'Cruel' LOL - grow up.
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mr_Gristle In the land of Whelk Eaters 26 May 17 7.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
The government is quite rightly challenging this 'judgement' and has indicated it will seek leave to appeal to the supreme court and, pending that decision, is seeking a stay on the order that it must reconsider the group’s position. Leaving aside the legal niceties, why is a judgement from the UK (not European) Court of Appeal from some of the most well-qualified independent arbiters of law in the country a 'judgement' in your eyes? The rule of law is the rule of law. Don't sign up to the charters in the first place by all means - that is a government's right - but once you're signed up, you have to abide by it.
Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| hedgehog50 Croydon 26 May 17 7.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mr_Gristle
Leaving aside the legal niceties, why is a judgement from the UK (not European) Court of Appeal from some of the most well-qualified independent arbiters of law in the country a 'judgement' in your eyes? The rule of law is the rule of law. Don't sign up to the charters in the first place by all means - that is a government's right - but once you're signed up, you have to abide by it. I merely think it is b*ll**ks (dangerous b*ll**ks at that) that a government can't choose who comes into their country.
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mr_Gristle In the land of Whelk Eaters 26 May 17 7.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
I merely think it is b*ll**ks (dangerous b*ll**ks at that) that a government can't choose who comes into their country. Fair enough and why shouldn't anyone be allowed to feel that way? But the day when very, very senior independent judges are considered as "enemies of the people" (not by you HH, I'm of course talking about the Mail) is a day when those looking to exert more control over our freedoms get that much closer to achieving their goals. The (true) story about the UK-based Libyans with extremist links being given a free pass by the UK shows in some ways that our government actually can choose who comes in and out of the country, when it REALLY suits them.
Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.