Priti Vacant has a plan, a deal with migrants plan.

Vic said:
Good grief. We're not at war with refugees. Would you welcome the Sun's GOTCHA headline for a sunk dinghy?
Click to expand...

Of course not.

I was making the comparison to make a point: the Government should be telling the civil servants what to do and the navy what to do and expect it to get done (because we live in a democracy and we elect the government). If a majority want control of laws and borders - which I believe is the case then so it should be. It seems that a large proportion of the thousands of civil servants whom are not elected and the Naval Officers - also not elected - might not share the views of the recent Home Secretary or indeed the new one and consequently they are being belligerent. Ditto border force employees (and the Union which represents them).

Why was Patel accused of bullying? Some might say because she was a nasty piece of work. But another angle could be: she was getting frustrated at having blocks put up against her attempts to deal with the migrant issue, so ended up shouting her mouth off in exasperation.

Let's see if the new woman does any better! But like I said, I'm not arguing about the small boats thing/illegal migration anymore - what is the point when 1.2 million visas were issued last year for legal entry, it hardly really matters, but I am just curious as to where power really lies.
 
Last edited:
bluethrunthru said:
Nice bit of hair splitting to prove what?
Click to expand...

Sorry to butt in (it was I who brought up the Falklands War) but I'm guessing that when I raised it, people were insinuating that Naval Officers should only 'follow orders' (from the sitting Prime Minister) when a state of war exists.

I don't actually think its the case - they should be following orders whenever, and the fact that the Captain of the sub that sank the Belgrano did so without checking the legal position (regarding a declaration of war) sort of backs that up. Well back in 1982 anyway, what would happen if the Belgrano dilemma happened now, I wonder....
 
Last edited:
El_george said:
Sorry to butt in (it was I who brought up the Falklands War) but I'm guessing that when I raised it, people were insinuating that Naval Officers should only 'follow orders' (from the sitting Prime Minister) when a state of war exists.

I don't actually think its the case - they should be following orders whenever, and the fact that the Captain of the sub that sank the Belgrano did so without checking the legal position (regarding a declaration of war) sort of backs that up. Well back in 1982 anyway, what would happen if the Belgrano dilemma happened now, I wonder....
Click to expand...
We could nuke the Channel, to make absolutely sure?
 
Bodicoteblue said:
Given this govts. propensity for bare-faced lies, not only to we the people, but even to the monarch herself (RIP) and the continuing degradation of our rights and freedoms, with worse to come disguised as the ‘bonfire of regulations’ reaching into our lives and jobs with serious consequences, and the alacrity with which they will disregard and break laws, domestic and international, as well as the sneering blatant contempt with they treat us, does anybody not think that there is the slightest possibility that they might be working towards creating the kind of ‘national emergency’ type scenario where the suspension of the democratic process itself could be ‘justified’.
Nothing seems too far-fetched anymore.
Click to expand...
We will vote them out at the next election we’ve all had enough of Boris and Truss, it’s gone to far when she describes poor peoples problems with the cost of living as “hand outs” generations of people paid in too fund the poor sick and disabled so they won’t be left unable to feed or heat there homes. I am so angry at the use of the phrase “hand outs”
Boris and his deportation plan is another disgraceful policy along with changes to the law through legislation.
Presumably the Belgrano was sunk not by Thatcher, but the head of the MOD who have the authority in a time of war. That was probably a mistake not deliberate it was sailing either in or just out of the exclusion zone
 
El_george said:
Sorry to butt in (it was I who brought up the Falklands War) but I'm guessing that when I raised it, people were insinuating that Naval Officers should only 'follow orders' (from the sitting Prime Minister) when a state of war exists.

I don't actually think its the case - they should be following orders whenever, and the fact that the Captain of the sub that sank the Belgrano did so without checking the legal position (regarding a declaration of war) sort of backs that up. Well back in 1982 anyway, what would happen if the Belgrano dilemma happened now, I wonder....
Click to expand...
At the time it was always the "Falklands Conflict" on the news.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.