|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 8, 2023 8:58:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Mar 8, 2023 8:59:17 GMT
I may be wrong but I thought that Peaceful protest is legal as it’s protected by the European Convention of human rights? In relation to the Travellers I think all they did was put in a law preventing them from turning up where they want and setting up camp. I don’t think that’s a bad thing and is basically trespassing. From local experience there are plenty of legal sites they can setup on. I’m not trying to be pedantic and I’m no fan of the Tories but the comparison between them and the Nazi’s is somewhat exaggerated. There’s plenty they can be genuinly hammered for other things but these comparisons just look silly, and is an insult to those that fought the Nazis in the 2nd WW. There’s nothing to be gained by this type of propeganda when they’ve got plenty of genuine and proven things to dislike them for. Corruption being the main one. Comparisons like this just dilute the genuine proven issues they’re accountable for. Lots of the above bills are unlawful under international law and so won’t actually happen. Yesterday’s bill being the latest example. Braverman agreed by saying the legal advice provided says there is a greater than 50% chance it breaks Human Rights law. It is extremist rhetoric to win votes and headlines that will never be followed through on. It won’t address the issue at all. As a lawyer, Braverman should be struck off. A Home Secretary should never be authorising breaking the law. The Nazi comparison is ridiculous. A comparison with regimes such as in the Middle East, China and Belarus is not ridiculous. How far this country has fallen over the last decade.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Mar 8, 2023 9:00:08 GMT
Good work from Rishi for taking this on. He's a bit of a big softie centrist but he's certainly starting to at least make an effort to address some of the issues that have been intentionally swept under the carpet over the years. He's well on the way to giving circuit breaker Starmer a run for his money in 2024 - Against all odds. Start reforming and privatisation of the NHS along with turning the economy around and we are on to a winner. In what way will this bill address the problem?
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 8, 2023 9:03:32 GMT
Good work from Rishi for taking this on. He's a bit of a big softie centrist but he's certainly starting to at least make an effort to address some of the issues that have been intentionally swept under the carpet over the years. He's well on the way to giving circuit breaker Starmer a run for his money in 2024 - Against all odds. Start reforming and privatisation of the NHS along with turning the economy around and we are on to a winner. In what way will this bill address the problem? Give it a chance. What reasonable alternatives are there? Or are you happy with the current policy?
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Mar 8, 2023 9:07:26 GMT
“Greedy immigration lawyers”! Wow. I wonder how much this guy thinks immigration lawyers who choose to act for destitute asylum seekers rather than millionaire oligarchs seeking golden visas make!? The Home Secretary admitted the legal advice is that this policy has an above 50% chance of being unlawful. What a waste of time and tax payers money. But a good distraction for a proportion of bigoted voters who can forget about being unable to get an ambulance for a day or two!
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Mar 8, 2023 9:12:06 GMT
In what way will this bill address the problem? Give it a chance. What reasonable alternatives are there? Or are you happy with the current policy? Why do you say it is a good bill if you can’t tell me any differences it will make? A viable alternative is to provide safe legal routes for asylum seekers to come here via British Embassies around the world, and for their claims to be processed within 28 days. Then make the small boat crossing illegal because we would have a viable safe and legal alternative. The people trafficker’s business model would be destroyed, the boats would all but stop, and genuine asylum seekers could still come here. It is very simple.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Mar 8, 2023 9:15:01 GMT
“Greedy immigration lawyers”! Wow. I wonder how much this guy thinks immigration lawyers who choose to act for destitute asylum seekers rather than millionaire oligarchs seeking golden visas make!? The Home Secretary admitted the legal advice is that this policy has an above 50% chance of being unlawful. What a waste of time and tax payers money. But a good distraction for a proportion of bigoted voters who can forget about being unable to get an ambulance for a day or two! Just out of curiosity What do law firms make from asylum claims
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 8, 2023 9:17:40 GMT
Give it a chance. What reasonable alternatives are there? Or are you happy with the current policy? Why do you say it is a good bill if you can’t tell me any differences it will make? A viable alternative is to provide safe legal routes for asylum seekers to come here via British Embassies around the world, and for their claims to be processed within 28 days. Then make the small boat crossing illegal because we would have a viable safe and legal alternative. The people trafficker’s business model would be destroyed, the boats would all but stop, and genuine asylum seekers could still come here. It is very simple. You make it sound simple. Your idea would be obliterated within weeks. It would do absolutely nothing to stop the illegal channel crossings. Sunak's plan should, in theory, deter interest in crossing illegally when those involved realise and start to see what happens to those who try it - Zero legal protection, detention and subsequent swift, safe return to the country they are from. The proposal quite clearly still allows for safe refuge of those who have a fair case to be here - Unlike the vast majority of the 15,000 Albanian migrants that arrived last year from France. It's utterly pathetic that you're so "triggered" by the proposal.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Mar 8, 2023 9:20:27 GMT
“Greedy immigration lawyers”! Wow. I wonder how much this guy thinks immigration lawyers who choose to act for destitute asylum seekers rather than millionaire oligarchs seeking golden visas make!? The Home Secretary admitted the legal advice is that this policy has an above 50% chance of being unlawful. What a waste of time and tax payers money. But a good distraction for a proportion of bigoted voters who can forget about being unable to get an ambulance for a day or two! Just out of curiosity What do law firms make from asylum claims I don’t know. But i had lunch with a friend who used to deal with asylum seekers and then moved firms to where the money is to deal with business visa etc, and she said for asylum seeker claims she would always do a fixed fee for peanuts, and then spend a huge amount of time working on the file. High profile cases doing judicial reviews for interest groups against the government are almost always pro bono/at cost for the lawyers working on it. Basically you don’t do that type of work to make money and the firms offer it as a loss leader and do other work as well.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Mar 8, 2023 9:21:09 GMT
Why do you say it is a good bill if you can’t tell me any differences it will make? A viable alternative is to provide safe legal routes for asylum seekers to come here via British Embassies around the world, and for their claims to be processed within 28 days. Then make the small boat crossing illegal because we would have a viable safe and legal alternative. The people trafficker’s business model would be destroyed, the boats would all but stop, and genuine asylum seekers could still come here. It is very simple. You make it sound simple. Your idea would be obliterated within weeks. It would do absolutely nothing to stop the illegal channel crossings. Sunak's plan should, in theory, deter interest in crossing illegally when those involved realise and start to see what happens to those who try it - Zero legal protection, detention and subsequent swift, safe return to the country they are from. The proposal quite clearly still allows for safe refuge of those who have a fair case to be here - Unlike the vast majority of the 15,000 Albanian migrants that arrived last year from France. It's utterly pathetic that you're so "triggered" by the proposal. Please obliterate my proposal then. You are the one who seems “triggered” by it. I don’t like the government wasting time and tax funds on rhetoric.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Mar 8, 2023 9:24:05 GMT
Why do you say it is a good bill if you can’t tell me any differences it will make? A viable alternative is to provide safe legal routes for asylum seekers to come here via British Embassies around the world, and for their claims to be processed within 28 days. Then make the small boat crossing illegal because we would have a viable safe and legal alternative. The people trafficker’s business model would be destroyed, the boats would all but stop, and genuine asylum seekers could still come here. It is very simple. You make it sound simple. Your idea would be obliterated within weeks. It would do absolutely nothing to stop the illegal channel crossings. Sunak's plan should, in theory, deter interest in crossing illegally when those involved realise and start to see what happens to those who try it - Zero legal protection, detention and subsequent swift, safe return to the country they are from. The proposal quite clearly still allows for safe refuge of those who have a fair case to be here - Unlike the vast majority of the 15,000 Albanian migrants that arrived last year from France. It's utterly pathetic that you're so "triggered" by the proposal. The fact that there is no such thing as "illegal" crossings under international law, blows your response straight out of the water. Pardon the pun mate.
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Mar 8, 2023 9:27:50 GMT
Let's face it, a 'Small Boats' bill is for Daily Mail and Daily Express readers only. Keep them onside.
It serves no other purpose. They are not really bothered how many people come in or how many drown.
|
|
|
Post by toppercorner on Mar 8, 2023 9:30:28 GMT
Good work from Rishi for taking this on. He's a bit of a big softie centrist but he's certainly starting to at least make an effort to address some of the issues that have been intentionally swept under the carpet over the years. He's well on the way to giving circuit breaker Starmer a run for his money in 2024 - Against all odds. Start reforming and privatisation of the NHS along with turning the economy around and we are on to a winner. We can reform the NHS by stopping funding Tory Lord's ownership of Nurses agencies and bleeding it dry. We can turn the economy around by joining the EU preventing the annual loss of £100bn (Just think, it won't be long before this country has lost £1trn (!) worth of trade by not being in the EU).
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Mar 8, 2023 9:38:03 GMT
Why do you say it is a good bill if you can’t tell me any differences it will make? A viable alternative is to provide safe legal routes for asylum seekers to come here via British Embassies around the world, and for their claims to be processed within 28 days. Then make the small boat crossing illegal because we would have a viable safe and legal alternative. The people trafficker’s business model would be destroyed, the boats would all but stop, and genuine asylum seekers could still come here. It is very simple. You make it sound simple. Your idea would be obliterated within weeks. It would do absolutely nothing to stop the illegal channel crossings. Sunak's plan should, in theory, deter interest in crossing illegally when those involved realise and start to see what happens to those who try it - Zero legal protection, detention and subsequent swift, safe return to the country they are from. The proposal quite clearly still allows for safe refuge of those who have a fair case to be here - Unlike the vast majority of the 15,000 Albanian migrants that arrived last year from France. It's utterly pathetic that you're so "triggered" by the proposal. Also, we cannot safely return someone to the country they are from if it breaches international law (which it will do if the person is a genuine asylum seeker). We cannot anymore send them back to the first safe country they reached because of brexit and we are no longer a party to the Dublin Agreement. The small boats issue is the fault of the tories and those who voted for them (ironically, most people who get angered by small boat crossings seem to be tories, tory papers, or people who voted brexit and in doing so inadvertently made the problem worse).
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Mar 8, 2023 9:44:47 GMT
Why do you say it is a good bill if you can’t tell me any differences it will make? A viable alternative is to provide safe legal routes for asylum seekers to come here via British Embassies around the world, and for their claims to be processed within 28 days. Then make the small boat crossing illegal because we would have a viable safe and legal alternative. The people trafficker’s business model would be destroyed, the boats would all but stop, and genuine asylum seekers could still come here. It is very simple. You make it sound simple. Your idea would be obliterated within weeks. It would do absolutely nothing to stop the illegal channel crossings. Sunak's plan should, in theory, deter interest in crossing illegally when those involved realise and start to see what happens to those who try it - Zero legal protection, detention and subsequent swift, safe return to the country they are from. The proposal quite clearly still allows for safe refuge of those who have a fair case to be here - Unlike the vast majority of the 15,000 Albanian migrants that arrived last year from France. It's utterly pathetic that you're so "triggered" by the proposal. Why were 55% of asylum claims by Albanians in 2022 accepted just out of interest?
|
|
|
Post by yeswilko on Mar 8, 2023 9:47:49 GMT
Good work from Rishi for taking this on. He's a bit of a big softie centrist but he's certainly starting to at least make an effort to address some of the issues that have been intentionally swept under the carpet over the years. He's well on the way to giving circuit breaker Starmer a run for his money in 2024 - Against all odds. Start reforming and privatisation of the NHS along with turning the economy around and we are on to a winner. Something tells me this will end up similar to your announcement that Trussonomics was wonderful and the mini budget a breath of fresh air 😂
|
|
|
Post by phileetin on Mar 8, 2023 9:58:36 GMT
Good work from Rishi for taking this on. He's a bit of a big softie centrist but he's certainly starting to at least make an effort to address some of the issues that have been intentionally swept under the carpet over the years. He's well on the way to giving circuit breaker Starmer a run for his money in 2024 - Against all odds. Start reforming and privatisation of the NHS along with turning the economy around and we are on to a winner. Something tells me this will end up similar to your announcement that Trussonomics was wonderful and the mini budget a breath of fresh air 😂 There's another budget next week so your comment dissing trussonomics may be a bit premature .
|
|
|
Post by yeswilko on Mar 8, 2023 10:09:23 GMT
Something tells me this will end up similar to your announcement that Trussonomics was wonderful and the mini budget a breath of fresh air 😂 There's another budget next week so your comment dissing trussonomics may be a bit premature . The prime minister and chancellor heavily dissed it themselves mucka.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Mar 8, 2023 10:18:07 GMT
Something tells me this will end up similar to your announcement that Trussonomics was wonderful and the mini budget a breath of fresh air 😂 There's another budget next week so your comment dissing trussonomics may be a bit premature . Be great if they try and bring it back, it will be hilarious and we all need a good laugh. Only Keir Starmer’s Labour seem to be parroting Trussonomics these days…….
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Mar 8, 2023 10:22:55 GMT
Good work from Rishi for taking this on. He's a bit of a big softie centrist but he's certainly starting to at least make an effort to address some of the issues that have been intentionally swept under the carpet over the years. He's well on the way to giving circuit breaker Starmer a run for his money in 2024 - Against all odds. Start reforming and privatisation of the NHS along with turning the economy around and we are on to a winner. Something tells me this will end up similar to your announcement that Trussonomics was wonderful and the mini budget a breath of fresh air 😂 Right idea excecuted with idiotic levels of naivity. Presumably the alternative has put us in a much stronger position? (see latest strength of pound for further information).
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Mar 8, 2023 10:39:07 GMT
1 I may be wrong but I thought that Peaceful protest is legal as it’s protected by the European Convention of human rights? 2 In relation to the Travellers I think all they did was put in a law preventing them from turning up where they want and setting up camp. I don’t think that’s a bad thing and is basically trespassing. From local experience there are plenty of legal sites they can setup on. 3. I’m not trying to be pedantic and I’m no fan of the Tories but the comparison between them and the Nazi’s is somewhat exaggerated. There’s plenty they can be genuinly hammered for other things but these comparisons just look silly, and is an insult to those that fought the Nazis in the 2nd WW. 4. There’s nothing to be gained by this type of propeganda when they’ve got plenty of genuine and proven things to dislike them for. Corruption being the main one. Comparisons like this just dilute the genuine proven issues they’re accountable for. 1. The definition of what is or is not peaceful protest has been completely narrowed The whole point of Protest is to draw attention to a grievance or injustice. If this Law were in place back in the day most if not all Suffragette Protests would be illegal. The law is written with very wide discretion for the Police to determine what constitutes being a disturbance to the Public or too noisy. Peaceful picketing by Nurses could well fall into this category 2. Since Major in 1994 changed the law on Trespass and at the same time removed the obligation on Local Councils to provide halting sites, 2/3 of halting sites have disappeared meaning there are very few sites to legally encamp This new bill goes MUCH further and changes Trespass from a Civil Offence to a Criminal Offence punishable with 3 months imprisonment and a £2,500 fine. It also allows seizure of Vehicles - effectively peoples homes www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/the-policing-bill-will-criminalise-gypsy-and-traveller-families-there-is-a-better-approach-174487As for protection under the Human Rights Act The Commissioner had written to MPs requesting amendment to Section 4 the Act which was ignored www.gypsy-traveller.org/news/council-of-europe-calls-on-mps-to-reject-criminalisation-of-trespass/3. The comparison to the Nazis in 1920/30s is very relevant It was only by the tolerance of increasing excesses by the German People against minorities that allowed the Nazis to continue You do understand that it was progressive right? 4. Propaganda by definition is spreading false information There is nothing false about New Laws being enacted to demonise Minorities (Gypsies, Roma, Travellers) and yesterday an outline of a Bill in clear breach of ECHR to criminalise Migrants and abdicate UKs International Obligations
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Mar 8, 2023 10:45:58 GMT
In what way will this bill address the problem? Give it a chance. What reasonable alternatives are there? Or are you happy with the current policy? There are loads of reasonable alternatives. First and foremost the home office should get their finger out and do their job. Why do we have 4x as many aslyum seekers housed in hotels compared to 2019? Why are these not being processed by Suella Bravermans department? Do you know why? In 2010 Labour DENIED 14,000 asylum applications. And back then the back log was less than 25k. In 2021 the Tories DENIED less than 3k asylum applications. And the back log is over 100k. So really the alternative is. DO YOUR FUCKING JOB. But if you want another alternartive which doesn't require the government to do their work then my suggestion would be creating a regulation with other EU countries whereby the country an asylum seeker first steps foot in, in Europe, is responsible for processing the asylum request. This is a very easy regulation which is completely legal and would allow us to send those on small boats straight back to France. We could call it the dublin regulation.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Mar 8, 2023 10:51:28 GMT
Why do you say it is a good bill if you can’t tell me any differences it will make? A viable alternative is to provide safe legal routes for asylum seekers to come here via British Embassies around the world, and for their claims to be processed within 28 days. Then make the small boat crossing illegal because we would have a viable safe and legal alternative. The people trafficker’s business model would be destroyed, the boats would all but stop, and genuine asylum seekers could still come here. It is very simple. You make it sound simple. Your idea would be obliterated within weeks. It would do absolutely nothing to stop the illegal channel crossings. Sunak's plan should, in theory, deter interest in crossing illegally when those involved realise and start to see what happens to those who try it - Zero legal protection, detention and subsequent swift, safe return to the country they are from. The proposal quite clearly still allows for safe refuge of those who have a fair case to be here - Unlike the vast majority of the 15,000 Albanian migrants that arrived last year from France. It's utterly pathetic that you're so "triggered" by the proposal. Surely a shoot on sight policy would be more effective at resolving it? Unfortunately that doesn't mean it's legal. What other bright ideas do you support? Everyone grows a money tree to fix the economy?
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Mar 8, 2023 10:59:58 GMT
Why do you say it is a good bill if you can’t tell me any differences it will make? A viable alternative is to provide safe legal routes for asylum seekers to come here via British Embassies around the world, and for their claims to be processed within 28 days. Then make the small boat crossing illegal because we would have a viable safe and legal alternative. The people trafficker’s business model would be destroyed, the boats would all but stop, and genuine asylum seekers could still come here. It is very simple. You make it sound simple. Your idea would be obliterated within weeks. It would do absolutely nothing to stop the illegal channel crossings. Sunak's plan should, in theory, deter interest in crossing illegally when those involved realise and start to see what happens to those who try it - Zero legal protection, detention and subsequent swift, safe return to the country they are from. The proposal quite clearly still allows for safe refuge of those who have a fair case to be here - Unlike the vast majority of the 15,000 Albanian migrants that arrived last year from France. It's utterly pathetic that you're so "triggered" by the proposal. It is not illegal www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/channel-boat-crossings-illegal-appeal-b1980109.html%3famp
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Mar 8, 2023 11:03:28 GMT
Blimey Huddy youve outdone yourself there.......thats just poor form mate sorry. If youre so insensed by thia all, let some gypos rock up on your driveway and let them stay there for a few weeks. NIMBY
|
|
|
Post by Han Solo on Mar 8, 2023 11:03:31 GMT
1 I may be wrong but I thought that Peaceful protest is legal as it’s protected by the European Convention of human rights? 2 In relation to the Travellers I think all they did was put in a law preventing them from turning up where they want and setting up camp. I don’t think that’s a bad thing and is basically trespassing. From local experience there are plenty of legal sites they can setup on. 3. I’m not trying to be pedantic and I’m no fan of the Tories but the comparison between them and the Nazi’s is somewhat exaggerated. There’s plenty they can be genuinly hammered for other things but these comparisons just look silly, and is an insult to those that fought the Nazis in the 2nd WW. 4. There’s nothing to be gained by this type of propeganda when they’ve got plenty of genuine and proven things to dislike them for. Corruption being the main one. Comparisons like this just dilute the genuine proven issues they’re accountable for. 1. The definition of what is or is not peaceful protest has been completely narrowed The whole point of Protest is to draw attention to a grievance or injustice. If this Law were in place back in the day most if not all Suffragette Protests would be illegal. The law is written with very wide discretion for the Police to determine what constitutes being a disturbance to the Public or too noisy. Peaceful picketing by Nurses could well fall into this category 2. Since Major in 1994 changed the law on Trespass and at the same time removed the obligation on Local Councils to provide halting sites, 2/3 of halting sites have disappeared meaning there are very few sites to legally encamp This new bill goes MUCH further and changes Trespass from a Civil Offence to a Criminal Offence punishable with 3 months imprisonment and a £2,500 fine. It also allows seizure of Vehicles - effectively peoples homes www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/the-policing-bill-will-criminalise-gypsy-and-traveller-families-there-is-a-better-approach-174487As for protection under the Human Rights Act The Commissioner had written to MPs requesting amendment to Section 4 the Act which was ignored www.gypsy-traveller.org/news/council-of-europe-calls-on-mps-to-reject-criminalisation-of-trespass/3. The comparison to the Nazis in 1920/30s is very relevant It was only by the tolerance of increasing excesses by the German People against minorities that allowed the Nazis to continue You do understand that it was progressive right? 4. Propaganda by definition is spreading false information There is nothing false about New Laws being enacted to demonise Minorities (Gypsies, Roma, Travellers) and yesterday an outline of a Bill in clear breach of ECHR to criminalise Migrants and abdicate UKs International Obligations We’ll have to agree to disagree then.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Mar 8, 2023 11:06:04 GMT
1. The definition of what is or is not peaceful protest has been completely narrowed The whole point of Protest is to draw attention to a grievance or injustice. If this Law were in place back in the day most if not all Suffragette Protests would be illegal. The law is written with very wide discretion for the Police to determine what constitutes being a disturbance to the Public or too noisy. Peaceful picketing by Nurses could well fall into this category 2. Since Major in 1994 changed the law on Trespass and at the same time removed the obligation on Local Councils to provide halting sites, 2/3 of halting sites have disappeared meaning there are very few sites to legally encamp This new bill goes MUCH further and changes Trespass from a Civil Offence to a Criminal Offence punishable with 3 months imprisonment and a £2,500 fine. It also allows seizure of Vehicles - effectively peoples homes www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/the-policing-bill-will-criminalise-gypsy-and-traveller-families-there-is-a-better-approach-174487As for protection under the Human Rights Act The Commissioner had written to MPs requesting amendment to Section 4 the Act which was ignored www.gypsy-traveller.org/news/council-of-europe-calls-on-mps-to-reject-criminalisation-of-trespass/3. The comparison to the Nazis in 1920/30s is very relevant It was only by the tolerance of increasing excesses by the German People against minorities that allowed the Nazis to continue You do understand that it was progressive right? 4. Propaganda by definition is spreading false information There is nothing false about New Laws being enacted to demonise Minorities (Gypsies, Roma, Travellers) and yesterday an outline of a Bill in clear breach of ECHR to criminalise Migrants and abdicate UKs International Obligations We’ll have to agree to disagree then. On what? The Facts or your Personal Opinions?
|
|
|
Post by Han Solo on Mar 8, 2023 11:16:00 GMT
We’ll have to agree to disagree then. On what? The Facts or your Personal Opinions? How the “facts” are interpreted (by both sides) and yes I do have an opinion too which I like to base arount personal experience.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Mar 8, 2023 11:26:52 GMT
Hopefully PMQs is juicy today, looking forward to the action.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Mar 8, 2023 11:31:37 GMT
Hopefully PMQs is juicy today, looking forward to the action. I'd forgotten about that treat, thanks for the reminder
|
|