Suella Braverman - sacked as Home Secretary (p394)

Amazing how Sky and BBC have started up stories about swaths of illegal immigrants to distract from the cluster fuck.
 
El_george said:
Well I accept your post, it makes a lot of sense, although I still have a bit of an issue with 'governments can't be trusted with absolute power'. When I put my cross in a box and make my vote I do so assuming they do have (absolute power) if they don't - because of some higher power, well what's the bloody point?

One thing puzzles me though: in 2016 when the people were campaigning for Brexit and shouting about 'take back control of our laws' or indeed the GE of 2019 - get Brexit done - control of borders/laws etc. why did nobody on the other side of the argument say what you have said?

On a totally different note, your steam engine analogy reminded me of something. I recently had a medical checkup and was told to get myself to A&E pronto as my blood pressure was hypertension level 3.

As they were doing various tests on me, I said to the nurse "would it help if I donated a pint of blood, or even a whole armful".... she told me it's not quite as simple as that.

I think I maybe the new Tony Hancock!
Click to expand...

The reality is that, just as no man is an island, so is no country. Every government is constrained, formally or informally, by a whole raft of treaties and informal understandings. A good example is NATO which has enormous powers over our defence forces. To say nothing of the many US bases on UK territory, which are pretty much a law unto themselves, thanks to the Visiting Forces Act.

A government with absolute and complete power would mean living in the equivalent of North Korea - a pariah state that barely trades with anyone.

I don't want to be boring, but essentially Brexit was a con. Its promoters put something forward that was impossible in the real world. They did this (in my opinion) for nefarious reasons.

In the film A Man For All Seasons, Thomas More tells Thomas Cromwell that he has made the mistake of telling the king what he can do, not what he ought to do. The same mistake has been made, but in the modern world, 'the king' has been replaced by the voters. Or, under FPTP voting, the largest minority of them.
 
Chris in London said:
which human rights do you think they should be overriding?
Click to expand...

Well I would start with all those bonkers ones that have stopped convicted criminals from being deported and then move onto the ones illegal migrants use to stay in the UK or remain in the UK, if they have over-stayed their visa. There was an infamous case from when Theresa May was home secretary often brought up erroneously about a Bolivian man who overstayed and she said he had claimed to stay on human rights grounds because he owned a cat. The cat wasn't the issue, he was allowed to stay because he was in a long-term relationship and used the 'the right to family life' element of the Human Rights convention to be allowed to stay. In my opinion knowing he was here short-term he should have a) not got himself into such a meaningful relationship or b) made sure if he had done so that the woman concerned would be prepared to move back to Bolivia once his visa was up.

There was a thing in the news recently about a convicted member of a grooming gang - it took seven years to deport him to Pakistan and he was hiding behind the family life element of human rights to prolong and prolong things. Two things stood out: it cost 5.5 million of public money to resolve the issue through the courts (greedy lawyers defending the indefencible) but I also couldn't believe it when I read he was sent to jail for six years, yet allowed out after two and a half. Why not just deport him in the first place saving 5.5 million plus whatever 30 months in jail costs the country and use the money to help more deserving people which is basically pretty much anyone, because what he was convicted for was abhorrent. We are just such a very soft country though.

I also have a bit of a problem with people stating that they have to stay in Britain because if they return to where they have left, they will be persecuted for being gay or for being a certain religion (just two examples). Just because our country is progressive and inclusive doesn't mean everyone should be able to come here. Why not make changes in the country you live in - as we are seeing with the brave women (and their supporters) in Iran, right now. In Britain, in the early 1960s did all gay men secretly try to move to a more enlightened place and live their lives openly there? or did they work and work and work on getting the laws changed here, successfully in the end.

BrianW said:
The reality is that, just as no man is an island, so is no country. Every government is constrained, formally or informally, by a whole raft of treaties and informal understandings. A good example is NATO which has enormous powers over our defence forces. To say nothing of the many US bases on UK territory, which are pretty much a law unto themselves, thanks to the Visiting Forces Act.

A government with absolute and complete power would mean living in the equivalent of North Korea - a pariah state that barely trades with anyone.

I don't want to be boring, but essentially Brexit was a con. Its promoters put something forward that was impossible in the real world. They did this (in my opinion) for nefarious reasons.

In the film A Man For All Seasons, Thomas More tells Thomas Cromwell that he has made the mistake of telling the king what he can do, not what he ought to do. The same mistake has been made, but in the modern world, 'the king' has been replaced by the voters. Or, under FPTP voting, the largest minority of them.
Click to expand...

I sort of get what you are saying. You mention North Korea... but what about Australia? They wanted to sort out their illegal migration issue and they did their equivalent of a Rwanda scheme using the island of Nauru. I saw a programme about it, it was an absolute disgrace what those people went through and many suicides resulted. I can't make a direct comparison with people flown by us to Rwanda, because none have gone. But I doubt it will be Nauru 2.0 and yet is Australia considered 'a pariah state that barely trades with anyone'? I don't believe so.

In many peoples' eyes Australia is considered a strong country that took decisive action to sort out an issue of concern, whilst we are weak and do not.
 
El_george said:
Well I would start with all those bonkers ones that have stopped convicted criminals from being deported and then move onto the ones illegal migrants use to stay in the UK or remain in the UK, if they have over-stayed their visa. There was an infamous case from when Theresa May was home secretary often brought up erroneously about a Bolivian man who overstayed and she said he had claimed to stay on human rights grounds because he owned a cat. The cat wasn't the issue, he was allowed to stay because he was in a long-term relationship and used the 'the right to family life' element of the Human Rights convention to be allowed to stay. In my opinion knowing he was here short-term he should have a) not got himself into such a meaningful relationship or b) made sure if he had done so that the woman concerned would be prepared to move back to Bolivia once his visa was up.

There was a thing in the news recently about a convicted member of a grooming gang - it took seven years to deport him to Pakistan and he was hiding behind the family life element of human rights to prolong and prolong things. Two things stood out: it cost 5.5 million of public money to resolve the issue through the courts (greedy lawyers defending the indefencible) but I also couldn't believe it when I read he was sent to jail for six years, yet allowed out after two and a half. Why not just deport him in the first place saving 5.5 million plus whatever 30 months in jail costs the country and use the money to help more deserving people which is basically pretty much anyone, because what he was convicted for was abhorrent. We are just such a very soft country though.

I also have a bit of a problem with people stating that they have to stay in Britain because if they return to where they have left, they will be persecuted for being gay or for being a certain religion (just two examples). Just because our country is progressive and inclusive doesn't mean everyone should be able to come here. Why not make changes in the country you live in - as we are seeing with the brave women (and their supporters) in Iran, right now. In Britain, in the early 1960s did all gay men secretly try to move to a more enlightened place and live their lives openly there? or did they work and work and work on getting the laws changed here, successfully in the end.



I sort of get what you are saying. You mention North Korea... but what about Australia? They wanted to sort out their illegal migration issue and they did their equivalent of a Rwanda scheme using the island of Nauru. I saw a programme about it, it was an absolute disgrace what those people went through and many suicides resulted. I can't make a direct comparison with people flown by us to Rwanda, because none have gone. But I doubt it will be Nauru 2.0 and yet is Australia considered 'a pariah state that barely trades with anyone'? I don't believe so.

In many peoples' eyes Australia is considered a strong country that took decisive action to sort out an issue of concern, whilst we are weak and do not.
Click to expand...
Crikey…
 
El_george said:
Well I would start with all those bonkers ones that have stopped convicted criminals from being deported and then move onto the ones illegal migrants use to stay in the UK or remain in the UK, if they have over-stayed their visa. There was an infamous case from when Theresa May was home secretary often brought up erroneously about a Bolivian man who overstayed and she said he had claimed to stay on human rights grounds because he owned a cat. The cat wasn't the issue, he was allowed to stay because he was in a long-term relationship and used the 'the right to family life' element of the Human Rights convention to be allowed to stay. In my opinion knowing he was here short-term he should have a) not got himself into such a meaningful relationship or b) made sure if he had done so that the woman concerned would be prepared to move back to Bolivia once his visa was up.

There was a thing in the news recently about a convicted member of a grooming gang - it took seven years to deport him to Pakistan and he was hiding behind the family life element of human rights to prolong and prolong things. Two things stood out: it cost 5.5 million of public money to resolve the issue through the courts (greedy lawyers defending the indefencible) but I also couldn't believe it when I read he was sent to jail for six years, yet allowed out after two and a half. Why not just deport him in the first place saving 5.5 million plus whatever 30 months in jail costs the country and use the money to help more deserving people which is basically pretty much anyone, because what he was convicted for was abhorrent. We are just such a very soft country though.

I also have a bit of a problem with people stating that they have to stay in Britain because if they return to where they have left, they will be persecuted for being gay or for being a certain religion (just two examples). Just because our country is progressive and inclusive doesn't mean everyone should be able to come here. Why not make changes in the country you live in - as we are seeing with the brave women (and their supporters) in Iran, right now. In Britain, in the early 1960s did all gay men secretly try to move to a more enlightened place and live their lives openly there? or did they work and work and work on getting the laws changed here, successfully in the end.



I sort of get what you are saying. You mention North Korea... but what about Australia? They wanted to sort out their illegal migration issue and they did their equivalent of a Rwanda scheme using the island of Nauru. I saw a programme about it, it was an absolute disgrace what those people went through and many suicides resulted. I can't make a direct comparison with people flown by us to Rwanda, because none have gone. But I doubt it will be Nauru 2.0 and yet is Australia considered 'a pariah state that barely trades with anyone'? I don't believe so.

In many peoples' eyes Australia is considered a strong country that took decisive action to sort out an issue of concern, whilst we are weak and do not.
Click to expand...

The reality is virtually no-one is "sent back" because under international law and our law they have the right to stay - they are refugee's thats over 70% of people who come here. There are no illegal immigrants - there are immigrants who after an asylum claim is considered can have their right to remain removed. Only then is their presence here illegal.

I am afraid that you have had the wool pulled over your eyes. Like every public service the Govt have spent over a decade underfunding it and hollowing it out. In the case of immigration services the result is that there are people who have been in limbo for a decade or more waiting for a decision. Now this lot are mental but they are not daft enough to have people waiting a decision homeless and wandering the streets begging and robbing so they have to put them up and feed them which costs millions - its the mentality of robbing Peter to pay Paul - makes no sense because the obvious is to0 staff the agency and have fast tracked reviews to move people through and anyone who can put them to work - we need them. However it suits them to play you - to shout "illegals" and " millions of pounds in cost" because it keeps the base haters angry and distracted from the real issues like a Home Sec sharing secret documents with all and sundry
 
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.