Suella Braverman sacked

[Penelope]

5 hours ago, amateur said:

She tried to eat Rishi's, but found that they had shrunk to nothing.

That, sir,is wit at it's finest.

[Lloyd90]

15 hours ago, FOXHUNTER1 said:

Disagree we need more that's why we are in such a mess.

That might be your view but the vast majority of elections are won in the middle ground. 
 

The right wingers are never going to flip to Labour. 
 

If they can’t win the middle ground votes then they can’t get into power.

[Gordon R]

Quote

Tories need to loose the right wing faction, same as Labour need to loose the left wing. The future is in the centre ground and unfortunately the edges of politics make the most noise. 

100% correct.

[ditchman]

so Dave boy cameron is back..................wouldnt it be exciting if labour did the same thing and brought back Blair the liar

[amateur]

She has really stuck the knife in, according to the BBC news.

Obviously waiting for the inevitable unseating of Sunak, should the election result go south, and parking her tanks on his lawn.

[oldypigeonpopper]

hello, big drop in Salary now to a poultry £86, 000 🤔

Edited November 14, 2023 by oldypigeonpopper

[shaun4860]

4 hours ago, oldypigeonpopper said:

hello, big drop in Salary now to a poultry £86, 000 🤔

Basic

Plus “office expenses”

Plus petty cash of which used to be £300/w, didn’t have to list what it was used for. *I found this out during the expenses fiasco, our local MP at the time used to claim the maximum amount every time, never varied by a penny, this was when you could log on to your MP’s expenses, he even claimed for a new TV for his London home 🤦🏻‍♂️

Plus all the other allowances you can claim for….

I imagine it’s still a pretty penny 

[old man]

8 hours ago, shaun4860 said:

Basic

Plus “office expenses”

Plus petty cash of which used to be £300/w, didn’t have to list what it was used for. *I found this out during the expenses fiasco, our local MP at the time used to claim the maximum amount every time, never varied by a penny, this was when you could log on to your MP’s expenses, he even claimed for a new TV for his London home 🤦🏻‍♂️

Plus all the other allowances you can claim for….

I imagine it’s still a pretty penny 

Good to hear that the plundering of the trough continues unabated? 😀 

[ditchman]

14 hours ago, oldypigeonpopper said:

hello, big drop in Salary now to a poultry £86, 000 🤔

being "a poultry" £86,000.....Edwina Currie.....would be interested......(not bad for bonking john major for 4 years)....and screwing up the egg supply

[old man]

28 minutes ago, ditchman said:

being "a poultry" £86,000.....Edwina Currie.....would be interested......(not bad for bonking john major for 4 years)....and screwing up the egg supply

Yep, she apparently addled and fried his brain and he walked us into a closer economic partnership if I remember correctly? 🤡

[clangerman]

I see the gov ruwanda scam to keep the public quiet has failed no planes millions wasted! 

[B725]

Apparently there are now 6 letter's of no confidence against Wishy Spudsac will he go ? He doesn't appear to have achieved anything he said he was going to do. 

[JohnfromUK]

21 minutes ago, B725 said:

Apparently there are now 6 letter's of no confidence against Wishy Spudsac will he go ? He doesn't appear to have achieved anything he said he was going to do. 

6 letters is around 10% of what is needed (53?, 57? - somewhere around there). 

The key question is that the Gov't takes advice from Gov't lawyers and Civil Servants as to what they can do - or otherwise.  How have they got it so wrong?  Will they be demoted/sacked for drafting 'unlawful' legislation?

Did the advisers/lawyers warn this would be unlawful and should not be attempted - but get over ruled by politicians? 

Or did the advisers/lawyers say that it would be fine and all fully lawful and if challenged in court the Gov't would win?

Someone somewhere has shown a considerable lack of competence in interpreting the law, and that head/heads should roll.

[B725]

Totally agree with you but sadly no one will go. It's unbelievable how the state of UK politics has become there is no difference between the Conservative or Labour both weak and spineless. 

 

[Yellow Bear]

11 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

6 letters is around 10% of what is needed (53?, 57? - somewhere around there). 

The key question is that the Gov't takes advice from Gov't lawyers and Civil Servants as to what they can do - or otherwise.  How have they got it so wrong?  Will they be demoted/sacked for drafting 'unlawful' legislation?

Did the advisers/lawyers warn this would be unlawful and should not be attempted - but get over ruled by politicians? 

Or did the advisers/lawyers say that it would be fine and all fully lawful and if challenged in court the Gov't would win?

Someone somewhere has shown a considerable lack of competence in interpreting the law, and that head/heads should roll.

Apart from political overruling (which they will claim whether it happened or not as no one outside can prove other wise)  this whose sorry mess is in the court of the civil service and as with many other things that have happened with this government they will get off scot free.   

[JohnfromUK]

What greatly concerns me is the 'nature' of asylum seekers.  They are people who would not be 'safe and get fair treatment' in their origin country.

Now if they happen to come from a totalitarian regime(e.g North Korea) and don't agree with the regime there, they are likely to be unsafe there and so they have a reasonable case for asylum somewhere with a different regime.  But for the vast majority - where that have genuinely been in conflict with the Gov't in their origin country, there is a very good chance that is because they are what we might term 'extremists'.  They may be from very hard line political organisations, hard line religious organisations, or simply involved in criminal activity.  That is the sort of person to whom we are exopected to offer a welcome.

In effect I think that asylum seekers have a much higher chance of being 'troublemakers' than the average person who is not in conflict with their own Gov't, but the most likely reason people are trying to get here is as economic migrants - and that is not an 'asylum seeker'.

5 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

Apart from political overruling (which they will claim whether it happened or not as no one outside can prove other wise)  this whose sorry mess is in the court of the civil service and as with many other things that have happened with this government they will get off scot free.   

That is my view as well.

[old man]

5 hours ago, clangerman said:

I see the gov ruwanda scam to keep the public quiet has failed no planes millions wasted! 

Yep and we will never know the ******* **** who gave that obvious idiocy the ok

[Vince Green]

On 14/11/2023 at 08:22, Lloyd90 said:

We adopted the Human Rights Act 1998, therefore that is our own law adopting those principals. 

We can’t then make a new law, that breaks the Human Rights Act law that we ourselves put in place. 

Of course we can change the law. Laws get changed all the time. Otherwise homosexual acts would still be illegal as would abortion. 

You don't have to look any further than the firearms laws to see multiple changes.

The Human Rights Act, well intentioned as it was, is being exploited and must be changed 

[Lloyd90]

56 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

Of course we can change the law. Laws get changed all the time. Otherwise homosexual acts would still be illegal as would abortion. 

You don't have to look any further than the firearms laws to see multiple changes.

The Human Rights Act, well intentioned as it was, is being exploited and must be changed 

We can change or enact new laws, but they can’t actively go against other laws I don’t believe. As in you couldn’t pass a law to say it’s ok to torture people or invade everyone’s privacy etc. 

All current legislation has to be compliant with the Human Rights Act. 

As noted online: 

All UK law must be interpreted, as far as possible, in a way that complies with the Human Rights Act. If an Act of Parliament breaches these rights, the courts can declare the legislation incompatible. This does not make the law invalid – it remains up to Parliament to decide whether or not to change it.

You are absolutely right that certain groups and people are trying to exploit the Act however to frustrate the process and try to force loop holes. 
 

It will be interesting to see what this piece of “Emergency Legislation” they are claiming they’re going to push through will do, there will certainly be multiple legal challenges and a lot of scrutiny. 
 

 

[12gauge82]

6 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

We can change or enact new laws, but they can’t actively go against other laws I don’t believe. As in you couldn’t pass a law to say it’s ok to torture people or invade everyone’s privacy etc. 

All current legislation has to be compliant with the Human Rights Act. 

As noted online: 

All UK law must be interpreted, as far as possible, in a way that complies with the Human Rights Act. If an Act of Parliament breaches these rights, the courts can declare the legislation incompatible. This does not make the law invalid – it remains up to Parliament to decide whether or not to change it.

You are absolutely right that certain groups and people are trying to exploit the Act however to frustrate the process and try to force loop holes. 
 

It will be interesting to see what this piece of “Emergency Legislation” they are claiming they’re going to push through will do, there will certainly be multiple legal challenges and a lot of scrutiny. 
 

 

Time to abolish the HRA and replace it with our own legislation that is fit for purpose.

[Lloyd90]

9 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

Time to abolish the HRA and replace it with our own legislation that is fit for purpose.

That’s the point, I’m not sure you can have a piece of legislation that gives us the same rights and protections that won’t have the same issue / legal challenges. 
 

Criminals and opportunist lawyers have tried to exploit laws and loopholes since they began, this is nothing new. 
 

I reckon the difference is that in other counties when it didn’t suit they just ignored the legislation, did what they thought needed to be done and if anyone moaned about it told them to go away. 

[Penelope]

That is some letter!!

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, Penelope said:

That is some letter!!

Hell hath no fury like ............ etc.

[12gauge82]

5 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

That’s the point, I’m not sure you can have a piece of legislation that gives us the same rights and protections that won’t have the same issue / legal challenges. 
 

Criminals and opportunist lawyers have tried to exploit laws and loopholes since they began, this is nothing new. 
 

I reckon the difference is that in other counties when it didn’t suit they just ignored the legislation, did what they thought needed to be done and if anyone moaned about it told them to go away. 

Your right, and what a wonderful thing it would be. When was the last time you or anyone you know went to the European court and used a piece of its legislation to protect yourself?

It's is used to protect terrorists and other criminals on a regular basis it would seem.

[Lloyd90]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

Your right, and what a wonderful thing it would be. When was the last time you or anyone you know went to the European court and used a piece of its legislation to protect yourself?

It's is used to protect terrorists and other criminals on a regular basis it would seem.

Sorry but I think that’s a very naive way of looking at it. 
 

The legislation provides you protection that avoid issues arising in the first place.
 

Public bodies are very clear that they have to abide by the legislation.

 

It impacts the decisions of public bodies on a daily basis (I personally see this) and if any rogue worker goes outside of those rules you then have the option or going to court but the fact you don’t need to isn’t a negative. It usually means they are complaint with the legislation. 
 

 

I often feel people in this country don’t realise how lucky they are to be born or live here and have such protections. 
 

Rwanda being a hot topic, wasn’t that long ago that a group of people there who criticised the Government were abducted and executed. 
 

We see similar in Eastern Europe / Russia. 

We see similar in China and some Asian counties etc. 

Even having a system where it’s a possibility to take the Government to court and challenge a decision is amazing and unthinkable in many Countries around the world. 
 

Personally I think it’s something to be proud of, to have such privilege and freedom.