CONservative government incompetence.

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

CONservative government incompetence.

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 521 of 603 < 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 >

HKOwen Hong Kong 16 Nov 23 11.19am
Originally posted by ASCPFC The world renowned fascists of Denmark can send illegal immigrants to Rwanda and Britain can't. Who exactly does anyone think would be sent there? Any semblance of a real asylum need and they wouldn't be sent. Talk about being played for fools. I thought this too but on checking seems they haven't sent anyone but the EU has paid for a scheme to send Libyans directly from Libya. Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.
Alert a moderator to this post

HKOwen

Hong Kong 16 Nov 23 11.19am

Originally posted by ASCPFC

The world renowned fascists of Denmark can send illegal immigrants to Rwanda and Britain can't. Who exactly does anyone think would be sent there? Any semblance of a real asylum need and they wouldn't be sent. Talk about being played for fools.

I thought this too but on checking seems they haven't sent anyone but the EU has paid for a scheme to send Libyans directly from Libya.

Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

Alert a moderator to this post

BrentisBack Beckenham 16 Nov 23 2.14pm
So the Supreme Court rule the Rwanda policy unlawful as Rwanda isn't safe enough. Rishis says to hell with the law and just doubles down on his desire to start sending refugees to Rwanda as soon as possible, thus breaking the law himself. They just don't give monkeys this lot.
Alert a moderator to this post

BrentisBack

Beckenham 16 Nov 23 2.14pm

So the Supreme Court rule the Rwanda policy unlawful as Rwanda isn't safe enough. Rishis says to hell with the law and just doubles down on his desire to start sending refugees to Rwanda as soon as possible, thus breaking the law himself. They just don't give monkeys this lot.

Alert a moderator to this post

Behind Enemy Lines Sussex 16 Nov 23 2.25pm
Originally posted by BrentisBack So the Supreme Court rule the Rwanda policy unlawful as Rwanda isn't safe enough. Rishis says to hell with the law and just doubles down on his desire to start sending refugees to Rwanda as soon as possible, thus breaking the law himself. They just don't give monkeys this lot. Arsenal need to cancel their sponsorship deal with Visit Rwanda... hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing.
Alert a moderator to this post

Behind Enemy Lines

Sussex 16 Nov 23 2.25pm

Send a Private Message to Behind Enemy Lines

Originally posted by BrentisBack

Arsenal need to cancel their sponsorship deal with Visit Rwanda...

hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 16 Nov 23 2.48pm
Originally posted by BrentisBack So the Supreme Court rule the Rwanda policy unlawful as Rwanda isn't safe enough. Rishis says to hell with the law and just doubles down on his desire to start sending refugees to Rwanda as soon as possible, thus breaking the law himself. They just don't give monkeys this lot. A bit simplistic and partisan to be serious. We absolutely have to stop illegal immigration. Everybody with an ounce of sense knows that. If the law is preventing a solution, then the law will have to be amended. If it means sending people to Rwanda then so be it. There are no circumstances where this can be allowed to continue. Meanwhile, legal immigration is at an absurdly high level. 600K a year. That is a town of people every year going forward. There is no justification for this whatsoever.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

16 Nov 23 2.48pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by BrentisBack

A bit simplistic and partisan to be serious.

We absolutely have to stop illegal immigration. Everybody with an ounce of sense knows that.
If the law is preventing a solution, then the law will have to be amended. If it means sending people to Rwanda then so be it.

There are no circumstances where this can be allowed to continue.

Meanwhile, legal immigration is at an absurdly high level. 600K a year. That is a town of people every year going forward.

There is no justification for this whatsoever.

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 16 Nov 23 2.52pm
Originally posted by BrentisBack So the Supreme Court rule the Rwanda policy unlawful as Rwanda isn't safe enough. Rishis says to hell with the law and just doubles down on his desire to start sending refugees to Rwanda as soon as possible, thus breaking the law himself. They just don't give monkeys this lot. The law was passed by Parliament. The Supreme Court often over turns laws due to technicalities, Parliament then has the right to either accept the decision or pass a further law to close the loophole. I do not believe that the Supreme Court then has the right to ignore Parliament after it has closed a loophole. Parliament is supreme not the courts. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 16 Nov 23 2.52pm

Originally posted by BrentisBack

The law was passed by Parliament. The Supreme Court often over turns laws due to technicalities, Parliament then has the right to either accept the decision or pass a further law to close the loophole.

I do not believe that the Supreme Court then has the right to ignore Parliament after it has closed a loophole.

Parliament is supreme not the courts.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Matov 16 Nov 23 6.17pm
Originally posted by Badger11 Parliament is supreme not the courts. We need to leave the ECHR. We need to abolish the Supreme Court. In fact, the entire legal system needs a massive overhaul, as does the civil service. The next election needs to be fought on these issues. "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.
Alert a moderator to this post

Matov

16 Nov 23 6.17pm

Originally posted by Badger11

Parliament is supreme not the courts.

We need to leave the ECHR. We need to abolish the Supreme Court. In fact, the entire legal system needs a massive overhaul, as does the civil service.

The next election needs to be fought on these issues.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 16 Nov 23 6.25pm
Originally posted by Matov We need to leave the ECHR. We need to abolish the Supreme Court. In fact, the entire legal system needs a massive overhaul, as does the civil service. The next election needs to be fought on these issues. I agree with leaving the ECHR I am against a non UK body overriding Parliament. As for the Supreme Court, well I don't like many of its decisions but you have to have a final court of judgement. In the old days this was the Court of Appeal or even the House of Lords. I think Parliament should legislate that the SC should base it's decisions on English law and not on external bodies such as the UN. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 16 Nov 23 6.25pm

Originally posted by Matov

We need to leave the ECHR. We need to abolish the Supreme Court. In fact, the entire legal system needs a massive overhaul, as does the civil service.

The next election needs to be fought on these issues.

I agree with leaving the ECHR I am against a non UK body overriding Parliament.

As for the Supreme Court, well I don't like many of its decisions but you have to have a final court of judgement. In the old days this was the Court of Appeal or even the House of Lords.

I think Parliament should legislate that the SC should base it's decisions on English law and not on external bodies such as the UN.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio south pole 16 Nov 23 6.39pm
Originally posted by BrentisBack So the Supreme Court rule the Rwanda policy unlawful as Rwanda isn't safe enough. Rishis says to hell with the law and just doubles down on his desire to start sending refugees to Rwanda as soon as possible, thus breaking the law himself. They just don't give monkeys this lot. pander to the courts or pander to the Mob. choose one. Cenotaphs, Palestine Flags, Poppies.......this is the closest the UK has come to Civil War since the Miner's Strike. Vlad Putin would love to stoke up Civil unrest in UK, France, wherever. Reminds me of 1916 Easter Rising, Dublin or 1917 October Revolution in Moscow.....all driven by Terrorists/Freedom Fighters with the backing of the Enemy. Why fight NATO troops in Ukraine when you can easily tie them up at the Cenotaph, Belfast, or Berlin ? This is one reason Vlad Putin is flooding Western Europe with refugee & Fake-ugee men. Edited by PalazioVecchio (16 Nov 2023 6.49pm) Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford
Alert a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio

south pole 16 Nov 23 6.39pm

Send a Private Message to PalazioVecchio

Originally posted by BrentisBack

pander to the courts or pander to the Mob.

choose one.

Cenotaphs, Palestine Flags, Poppies.......this is the closest the UK has come to Civil War since the Miner's Strike.

Vlad Putin would love to stoke up Civil unrest in UK, France, wherever.

Reminds me of 1916 Easter Rising, Dublin or 1917 October Revolution in Moscow.....all driven by Terrorists/Freedom Fighters with the backing of the Enemy. Why fight NATO troops in Ukraine when you can easily tie them up at the Cenotaph, Belfast, or Berlin ? This is one reason Vlad Putin is flooding Western Europe with refugee & Fake-ugee men.

Edited by PalazioVecchio (16 Nov 2023 6.49pm)

Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

Alert a moderator to this post

Matov 16 Nov 23 7.56pm
Originally posted by PalazioVecchio en you can easily tie them up at the Cenotaph, Belfast, or Berlin ? This is one reason Vlad Putin is flooding Western Europe with refugee & Fake-ugee men. Edited by PalazioVecchio (16 Nov 2023 6.49pm) WTF? Did Putin bomb Libya and oversee the downfall of Gaddafi? Did Putin try to overthrow Assads regime in Syria and then back Islamic fundamental terrorists? Did Putin open the floodgates in Germany in 2015? Did Putin force the UK to stay in the ECHR? Shall I go on? Putin actually warns the West about this (all his speeches are out there - Its amazing to actual LISTEN to what he has to say rather than believe what the West wants you to believe). Putin is not the problem beyond the fact that he wanted to improve relations with the West and actually make Russia closer to it. But likes of the UK and the US scuppered that. After all, why would we want Europe to benefit from oil and gas supplies from a fellow European Christian neighbour when we can buy it from Muslims? "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.
Alert a moderator to this post

Matov

16 Nov 23 7.56pm

Originally posted by PalazioVecchio

en you can easily tie them up at the Cenotaph, Belfast, or Berlin ? This is one reason Vlad Putin is flooding Western Europe with refugee & Fake-ugee men.

Edited by PalazioVecchio (16 Nov 2023 6.49pm)

WTF?

Did Putin bomb Libya and oversee the downfall of Gaddafi?
Did Putin try to overthrow Assads regime in Syria and then back Islamic fundamental terrorists?
Did Putin open the floodgates in Germany in 2015?
Did Putin force the UK to stay in the ECHR?

Shall I go on?

Putin actually warns the West about this (all his speeches are out there - Its amazing to actual LISTEN to what he has to say rather than believe what the West wants you to believe).

Putin is not the problem beyond the fact that he wanted to improve relations with the West and actually make Russia closer to it. But likes of the UK and the US scuppered that.

After all, why would we want Europe to benefit from oil and gas supplies from a fellow European Christian neighbour when we can buy it from Muslims?

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20 Croydon 16 Nov 23 10.28pm
Originally posted by Badger11 I agree with leaving the ECHR I am against a non UK body overriding Parliament. As for the Supreme Court, well I don't like many of its decisions but you have to have a final court of judgement. In the old days this was the Court of Appeal or even the House of Lords. I think Parliament should legislate that the SC should base it's decisions on English law and not on external bodies such as the UN. Non-refoulement - the commitment not to return an asylum seeker to a place where they might be at risk – is not dreamed up in Strasbourg to annoy the Tory party or subvert UK sovereignty. It is a core principle of international law. It is written into the UN convention. And it is part of UK domestic law already, not only through the Human Rights Act but through at least three pieces of immigration law. Not foreign courts, but UK domestic law.
Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20

Croydon 16 Nov 23 10.28pm

Originally posted by Badger11

I agree with leaving the ECHR I am against a non UK body overriding Parliament.

As for the Supreme Court, well I don't like many of its decisions but you have to have a final court of judgement. In the old days this was the Court of Appeal or even the House of Lords.

I think Parliament should legislate that the SC should base it's decisions on English law and not on external bodies such as the UN.

Non-refoulement - the commitment not to return an asylum seeker to a place where they might be at risk – is not dreamed up in Strasbourg to annoy the Tory party or subvert UK sovereignty. It is a core principle of international law. It is written into the UN convention. And it is part of UK domestic law already, not only through the Human Rights Act but through at least three pieces of immigration law.

Not foreign courts, but UK domestic law.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 16 Nov 23 10.38pm
Originally posted by steeleye20 Non-refoulement - the commitment not to return an asylum seeker to a place where they might be at risk – is not dreamed up in Strasbourg to annoy the Tory party or subvert UK sovereignty. It is a core principle of international law. It is written into the UN convention. And it is part of UK domestic law already, not only through the Human Rights Act but through at least three pieces of immigration law. Not foreign courts, but UK domestic law. Which is why the law needs changing to halt the abuse of our system by people who are in no danger at all. You and all the other blinkered virtue signallers need to wake up to the fact that illegal immigration will get far worse to the point where it causes a breakdown of society if we don't tackle it very soon.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

16 Nov 23 10.38pm

Originally posted by steeleye20

Not foreign courts, but UK domestic law.

Which is why the law needs changing to halt the abuse of our system by people who are in no danger at all.

You and all the other blinkered virtue signallers need to wake up to the fact that illegal immigration will get far worse to the point where it causes a breakdown of society if we don't tackle it very soon.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 16 Nov 23 10.44pm
Originally posted by steeleye20 Non-refoulement - the commitment not to return an asylum seeker to a place where they might be at risk – is not dreamed up in Strasbourg to annoy the Tory party or subvert UK sovereignty. It is a core principle of international law. It is written into the UN convention. And it is part of UK domestic law already, not only through the Human Rights Act but through at least three pieces of immigration law. Not foreign courts, but UK domestic law. France is that dangerous?
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

16 Nov 23 10.44pm

Originally posted by steeleye20

Not foreign courts, but UK domestic law.

France is that dangerous?

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 521 of 603 < 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

CONservative government incompetence.

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors