Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why are people blaming the EU for this flight being cancelled? European court of Human rights was formed in 1959 years before the EU nothing to do with the EU" Dunno, but we signed it and agreed to abide by it is and that's exactly what we should do. Another Tory home goal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I agree I wonder how many people who voted leave EU actually know anything about it or how it works " Or did they just believe the government's who deflected blame wrongly in the direction of Brussels to save their own faces. Red Tops were always quick to slate the EU instead of the government and they played a major park in the 30 year anti European rhetoric. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was under the illudion that all illegal immigrants would be taken there, processed and those who were successful return here. I recently found out that only 500 people would be sent there, if you get accepted you get to live in Rwands. Is it me, or is this another tory shit show that is only another deflection. " ,,,, ,,,,, ,,,,, ,,,, No its not you its a Tory sh1t show | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I agree I wonder how many people who voted leave EU actually know anything about it or how it works " Even now, a lot of people have no clue about what the EU is or does. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In fairness it's not unexpected. Something always seems to crop up when the government suddenly decide to take action. They can't win really, as folk will grumble if an entire plane took of with 6 or 7 people when hundreds arrive illegally every day." It's always a grumble when those pesky human rights pop up to interfere with the government distracting stupid people with "immigrants are causing all your problems" nonsense.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In fairness it's not unexpected. Something always seems to crop up when the government suddenly decide to take action. They can't win really, as folk will grumble if an entire plane took of with 6 or 7 people when hundreds arrive illegally every day. It's always a grumble when those pesky human rights pop up to interfere with the government distracting stupid people with "immigrants are causing all your problems" nonsense. "I’ve never heard or seen anything where it’s claimed “immigrants are causing all the problems “. Did you make it up? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In fairness it's not unexpected. Something always seems to crop up when the government suddenly decide to take action. They can't win really, as folk will grumble if an entire plane took of with 6 or 7 people when hundreds arrive illegally every day. It's always a grumble when those pesky human rights pop up to interfere with the government distracting stupid people with "immigrants are causing all your problems" nonsense.
I’ve never heard or seen anything where it’s claimed “immigrants are causing all the problems “. Did you make it up? "I would give up mate you cant debate with someone who believes the voices in their head.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In fairness it's not unexpected. Something always seems to crop up when the government suddenly decide to take action. They can't win really, as folk will grumble if an entire plane took of with 6 or 7 people when hundreds arrive illegally every day. It's always a grumble when those pesky human rights pop up to interfere with the government distracting stupid people with "immigrants are causing all your problems" nonsense.
I’ve never heard or seen anything where it’s claimed “immigrants are causing all the problems “. Did you make it up? "You should read these forums, and the newspapers/media that the majority of Fab users read. It's a firm view held by a lot of people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In fairness it's not unexpected. Something always seems to crop up when the government suddenly decide to take action. They can't win really, as folk will grumble if an entire plane took of with 6 or 7 people when hundreds arrive illegally every day. It's always a grumble when those pesky human rights pop up to interfere with the government distracting stupid people with "immigrants are causing all your problems" nonsense.
I’ve never heard or seen anything where it’s claimed “immigrants are causing all the problems “. Did you make it up? I would give up mate you cant debate with someone who believes the voices in their head. "Ridiculous comment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In fairness it's not unexpected. Something always seems to crop up when the government suddenly decide to take action. They can't win really, as folk will grumble if an entire plane took of with 6 or 7 people when hundreds arrive illegally every day. It's always a grumble when those pesky human rights pop up to interfere with the government distracting stupid people with "immigrants are causing all your problems" nonsense.
I’ve never heard or seen anything where it’s claimed “immigrants are causing all the problems “. Did you make it up?
You should read these forums, and the newspapers/media that the majority of Fab users read. It's a firm view held by a lot of people."You got any links or examples as all i see in the media is Russia,corona virus, leaving the eu and boris are causing the problems not once have i seen immigrants being blamed.So a link or too would be good to see to back up your claim,ive no idea what media you look at. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In fairness it's not unexpected. Something always seems to crop up when the government suddenly decide to take action. They can't win really, as folk will grumble if an entire plane took of with 6 or 7 people when hundreds arrive illegally every day. It's always a grumble when those pesky human rights pop up to interfere with the government distracting stupid people with "immigrants are causing all your problems" nonsense.
I’ve never heard or seen anything where it’s claimed “immigrants are causing all the problems “. Did you make it up?
You should read these forums, and the newspapers/media that the majority of Fab users read. It's a firm view held by a lot of people.You got any links or examples as all i see in the media is Russia,corona virus, leaving the eu and boris are causing the problems not once have i seen immigrants being blamed.So a link or too would be good to see to back up your claim,ive no idea what media you look at. "Can't post links on here. And you're being deliberately ridiculous. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In fairness it's not unexpected. Something always seems to crop up when the government suddenly decide to take action. They can't win really, as folk will grumble if an entire plane took of with 6 or 7 people when hundreds arrive illegally every day. It's always a grumble when those pesky human rights pop up to interfere with the government distracting stupid people with "immigrants are causing all your problems" nonsense.
I’ve never heard or seen anything where it’s claimed “immigrants are causing all the problems “. Did you make it up?
You should read these forums, and the newspapers/media that the majority of Fab users read. It's a firm view held by a lot of people.You got any links or examples as all i see in the media is Russia,corona virus, leaving the eu and boris are causing the problems not once have i seen immigrants being blamed.So a link or too would be good to see to back up your claim,ive no idea what media you look at.
Can't post links on here.
And you're being deliberately ridiculous. "yes you can if they are from a credible source ive done it loads of times when ask and im not being ridiculous im asking for you to back up your claim with some evidence when i cannot find one thing that backs it up. Either these media reports exist or as i said they are just in your head. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In fairness it's not unexpected. Something always seems to crop up when the government suddenly decide to take action. They can't win really, as folk will grumble if an entire plane took of with 6 or 7 people when hundreds arrive illegally every day. It's always a grumble when those pesky human rights pop up to interfere with the government distracting stupid people with "immigrants are causing all your problems" nonsense.
I’ve never heard or seen anything where it’s claimed “immigrants are causing all the problems “. Did you make it up?
You should read these forums, and the newspapers/media that the majority of Fab users read. It's a firm view held by a lot of people.You got any links or examples as all i see in the media is Russia,corona virus, leaving the eu and boris are causing the problems not once have i seen immigrants being blamed.So a link or too would be good to see to back up your claim,ive no idea what media you look at.
Can't post links on here.
And you're being deliberately ridiculous. yes you can if they are from a credible source ive done it loads of times when ask and im not being ridiculous im asking for you to back up your claim with some evidence when i cannot find one thing that backs it up.
Either these media reports exist or as i said they are just in your head. "Of course you can post links, you aren't someone who expresses critical options of the government/brexit etc. Try being someone who questions the government. You get hounded to shit and all your posts get reported. I won't be goaded into a forum ban. Clearly a large portion of the population blame immigrants for problems caused by the government. You can deny it, fine, but it's utterly pointless to discuss anything if you pretend that reality isn't real. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In fairness it's not unexpected. Something always seems to crop up when the government suddenly decide to take action. They can't win really, as folk will grumble if an entire plane took of with 6 or 7 people when hundreds arrive illegally every day. It's always a grumble when those pesky human rights pop up to interfere with the government distracting stupid people with "immigrants are causing all your problems" nonsense.
I’ve never heard or seen anything where it’s claimed “immigrants are causing all the problems “. Did you make it up?
You should read these forums, and the newspapers/media that the majority of Fab users read. It's a firm view held by a lot of people."And why some voted to leave.. Note the word some before getting all red faced 'some of you'..  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In fairness it's not unexpected. Something always seems to crop up when the government suddenly decide to take action. They can't win really, as folk will grumble if an entire plane took of with 6 or 7 people when hundreds arrive illegally every day. It's always a grumble when those pesky human rights pop up to interfere with the government distracting stupid people with "immigrants are causing all your problems" nonsense.
I’ve never heard or seen anything where it’s claimed “immigrants are causing all the problems “. Did you make it up?
You should read these forums, and the newspapers/media that the majority of Fab users read. It's a firm view held by a lot of people.You got any links or examples as all i see in the media is Russia,corona virus, leaving the eu and boris are causing the problems not once have i seen immigrants being blamed.So a link or too would be good to see to back up your claim,ive no idea what media you look at.
Can't post links on here.
And you're being deliberately ridiculous. yes you can if they are from a credible source ive done it loads of times when ask and im not being ridiculous im asking for you to back up your claim with some evidence when i cannot find one thing that backs it up.
Either these media reports exist or as i said they are just in your head.
Of course you can post links, you aren't someone who expresses critical options of the government/brexit etc.
Try being someone who questions the government. You get hounded to shit and all your posts get reported.
I won't be goaded into a forum ban.
Clearly a large portion of the population blame immigrants for problems caused by the government. You can deny it, fine, but it's utterly pointless to discuss anything if you pretend that reality isn't real."It was some who blamed the Heuguenot in the 16th century, then the Jew's in the 18th century, then the Windward immigrants, then the Ugandan Asians, then the Romanian etc.. And the Irish let's not forget.. Common fact is that division and someone to blame has been the easy line to put out as some don't want to see further than that for their own misfortune .. Tried and tested and it works today, fucks sake Roman politicians were doing it as was Goebbels.. Divide and rule, look over there.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Illegal immigrants aren't causing all the problems. They are their own problem for us to solve as there is only so much treasury money to spend each year. Without resorting to baseless slander of stupidity or bigotry perhaps folk should come up with a solution that is better? That is a solution aside from "Blame the Tories and those who vote for them". That thinking is what's really thick as you're just passing the problems onto your own fictional malicious group." Lol Look! This post is exactly what we're saying. Don't blame the Tories! It's the immigrants. Amazing.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Illegal immigrants aren't causing all the problems. They are their own problem for us to solve as there is only so much treasury money to spend each year. Without resorting to baseless slander of stupidity or bigotry perhaps folk should come up with a solution that is better? That is a solution aside from "Blame the Tories and those who vote for them". That thinking is what's really thick as you're just passing the problems onto your own fictional malicious group." To clarify, you think the only solution to this problem is to fly them to Rwanda and return with people from Rwanda? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Illegal immigrants aren't causing all the problems. They are their own problem for us to solve as there is only so much treasury money to spend each year. Without resorting to baseless slander of stupidity or bigotry perhaps folk should come up with a solution that is better? That is a solution aside from "Blame the Tories and those who vote for them". That thinking is what's really thick as you're just passing the problems onto your own fictional malicious group." The solution given we have the equivalent of an idealogical cabal where some of the decent embers of the Tory party were hounded out before the last election and the cabinet is made up largely of blinkered brexiteers is to either remove the current party from office or watch as the PM continues to debase the position he holds which 41% of his own think he's not fit for.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Illegal immigrants aren't causing all the problems. They are their own problem for us to solve as there is only so much treasury money to spend each year. Without resorting to baseless slander of stupidity or bigotry perhaps folk should come up with a solution that is better? That is a solution aside from "Blame the Tories and those who vote for them". That thinking is what's really thick as you're just passing the problems onto your own fictional malicious group. To clarify, you think the only solution to this problem is to fly them to Rwanda and return with people from Rwanda? " To be fair the poster said, come up with solutions that are better. I have a feeling a solutions thread would be a rather small thread, but very heated. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just send them back to France. " How? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just send them back to France. " Illegal, we could when we were in the EU but you voted for Brexit , try again | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Illegal immigrants aren't causing all the problems. They are their own problem for us to solve as there is only so much treasury money to spend each year. Without resorting to baseless slander of stupidity or bigotry perhaps folk should come up with a solution that is better? That is a solution aside from "Blame the Tories and those who vote for them". That thinking is what's really thick as you're just passing the problems onto your own fictional malicious group." Refugees are a cost. Agreed. There is only so much the treasury can spend. Mostly agree. (They have a tax and debt lever). Imo the spend on refugees is a distraction from looking at other areas. Spending money on people who need real help feels an okay spend, even if they don't have a UK passport. Yes, there will be limits. But I'd bet there are better ways of saving 2bn if we really needed to. If we do want to reduce spend on refugees, I'm not convinced Rwanda is the answer. Irrc the benefit case is "if people know they will end up in Rwanda that will put them off from coming". Rather than we can reduce the costs per refugee. My quick solution (as others have also suggested) is to work with other countries to manage closer to asylum hot spots. And find ways of better encouraging ppl to use these sites. Unfortunately I feel we are burning collaboration bridges quickly. Ironically that may be a reason why we are seeing more boat crossings. There is no Dublin accord to fall back on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just send them back to France. How?" Cheapest form of transport available - P&O ferry. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't post links on here. ... Try being someone who questions the government. You get hounded to shit and all your posts get reported. I won't be goaded into a forum ban." You won't get a forum ban. The forum rules explicitly state "You can link to: Any well recognised news site (bbc, times, telegraph, sun, notw, cnn and all the rest)". So you're able to post any news story from a major news site. Even the News of the World seems to count as a reputable source, despite having been shut down 11 years ago. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just send them back to France. " Trouble is, the people didn't want this ability. We voted to remove that option. Gotta accept democracy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just send them back to France. How? Cheapest form of transport available - P&O ferry. " It is illegal, try again | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't post links on here. ... Try being someone who questions the government. You get hounded to shit and all your posts get reported. I won't be goaded into a forum ban. You won't get a forum ban. The forum rules explicitly state "You can link to: Any well recognised news site (bbc, times, telegraph, sun, notw, cnn and all the rest)". So you're able to post any news story from a major news site. Even the News of the World seems to count as a reputable source, despite having been shut down 11 years ago." Happens though, try being critical of the government, and see how you get hounded. Anyway, if someone believes the world of flat, no amount of links is going to change that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just send them back to France. How? Cheapest form of transport available - P&O ferry. It is illegal, try again " That is an illegal full house  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Illegal immigrants aren't causing all the problems. They are their own problem for us to solve as there is only so much treasury money to spend each year. Without resorting to baseless slander of stupidity or bigotry perhaps folk should come up with a solution that is better? That is a solution aside from "Blame the Tories and those who vote for them". That thinking is what's really thick as you're just passing the problems onto your own fictional malicious group. Refugees are a cost. Agreed. There is only so much the treasury can spend. Mostly agree. (They have a tax and debt lever). Imo the spend on refugees is a distraction from looking at other areas. Spending money on people who need real help feels an okay spend, even if they don't have a UK passport. Yes, there will be limits. But I'd bet there are better ways of saving 2bn if we really needed to. If we do want to reduce spend on refugees, I'm not convinced Rwanda is the answer. Irrc the benefit case is "if people know they will end up in Rwanda that will put them off from coming". Rather than we can reduce the costs per refugee. My quick solution (as others have also suggested) is to work with other countries to manage closer to asylum hot spots. And find ways of better encouraging ppl to use these sites. Unfortunately I feel we are burning collaboration bridges quickly. Ironically that may be a reason why we are seeing more boat crossings. There is no Dublin accord to fall back on. " The French happily send all of them to the UK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! " whys this a good thing ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just send them back to France. How? Cheapest form of transport available - P&O ferry. It is illegal, try again That is an illegal full house "As much as I love France and the French we know they won’t put up a fight. Anyway, a cunning plan - offload them at lunchtime. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! " Lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just send them back to France. How? Cheapest form of transport available - P&O ferry. It is illegal, try again That is an illegal full house
As much as I love France and the French we know they won’t put up a fight.
Anyway, a cunning plan - offload them at lunchtime. "That made me laugh more than it should | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't post links on here. ... Try being someone who questions the government. You get hounded to shit and all your posts get reported. I won't be goaded into a forum ban. You won't get a forum ban. The forum rules explicitly state "You can link to: Any well recognised news site (bbc, times, telegraph, sun, notw, cnn and all the rest)". So you're able to post any news story from a major news site. Even the News of the World seems to count as a reputable source, despite having been shut down 11 years ago." He knows that he has made a statement that is pure fiction and so will go round and round until its dropped. I personally have not seen anything in the media blaming immigrants for the current crisis and just want to know the source of this information nothing more. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! " PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Illegal immigrants aren't causing all the problems. They are their own problem for us to solve as there is only so much treasury money to spend each year. Without resorting to baseless slander of stupidity or bigotry perhaps folk should come up with a solution that is better? That is a solution aside from "Blame the Tories and those who vote for them". That thinking is what's really thick as you're just passing the problems onto your own fictional malicious group. Refugees are a cost. Agreed. There is only so much the treasury can spend. Mostly agree. (They have a tax and debt lever). Imo the spend on refugees is a distraction from looking at other areas. Spending money on people who need real help feels an okay spend, even if they don't have a UK passport. Yes, there will be limits. But I'd bet there are better ways of saving 2bn if we really needed to. If we do want to reduce spend on refugees, I'm not convinced Rwanda is the answer. Irrc the benefit case is "if people know they will end up in Rwanda that will put them off from coming". Rather than we can reduce the costs per refugee. My quick solution (as others have also suggested) is to work with other countries to manage closer to asylum hot spots. And find ways of better encouraging ppl to use these sites. Unfortunately I feel we are burning collaboration bridges quickly. Ironically that may be a reason why we are seeing more boat crossings. There is no Dublin accord to fall back on. The French happily send all of them to the UK. " they don't send them to, do they? They may not do as much as you like to stop them... But is it Frances job to deny someone their right to claim asylum in the UK? (My way would actually renive the while France problem) A year or so ago, we were able to send a fair number back to France. Apparently that wasn't a good arrangement to be in, or at least was worth sacrificing for the greater good. Not the choice I would have made. But there you go. Democracy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Illegal immigrants aren't causing all the problems. They are their own problem for us to solve as there is only so much treasury money to spend each year. Without resorting to baseless slander of stupidity or bigotry perhaps folk should come up with a solution that is better? That is a solution aside from "Blame the Tories and those who vote for them". That thinking is what's really thick as you're just passing the problems onto your own fictional malicious group. Refugees are a cost. Agreed. There is only so much the treasury can spend. Mostly agree. (They have a tax and debt lever). Imo the spend on refugees is a distraction from looking at other areas. Spending money on people who need real help feels an okay spend, even if they don't have a UK passport. Yes, there will be limits. But I'd bet there are better ways of saving 2bn if we really needed to. If we do want to reduce spend on refugees, I'm not convinced Rwanda is the answer. Irrc the benefit case is "if people know they will end up in Rwanda that will put them off from coming". Rather than we can reduce the costs per refugee. My quick solution (as others have also suggested) is to work with other countries to manage closer to asylum hot spots. And find ways of better encouraging ppl to use these sites. Unfortunately I feel we are burning collaboration bridges quickly. Ironically that may be a reason why we are seeing more boat crossings. There is no Dublin accord to fall back on. The French happily send all of them to the UK. they don't send them to, do they? They may not do as much as you like to stop them... But is it Frances job to deny someone their right to claim asylum in the UK? (My way would actually renive the while France problem) A year or so ago, we were able to send a fair number back to France. Apparently that wasn't a good arrangement to be in, or at least was worth sacrificing for the greater good. Not the choice I would have made. But there you go. Democracy. " Will of the people  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue " Actually, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/15/boris-johnson-news-rwanda-ni-protocol-brexit-starmer-pmqs-live/ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! " Not true.. A few rabid types in the cabinet are excitedly wanting to but thankfully there's still some decent back benchers in the Tory party who won't allow it.. It was Churchills idea and respect deserved, we wrote most of what it is and were one of the main drivers of it.. Ripping up something that important because off an Ill thought through ridiculous idea which was rightly stopped is nonsense.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue Actually, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/15/boris-johnson-news-rwanda-ni-protocol-brexit-starmer-pmqs-live/" Like I said, you really haven’t got a clue,  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue Actually, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/15/boris-johnson-news-rwanda-ni-protocol-brexit-starmer-pmqs-live/ Like I said, you really haven’t got a clue, "It's all a bit trumpian and the Mexicans will pay for the wall.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue Actually, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/15/boris-johnson-news-rwanda-ni-protocol-brexit-starmer-pmqs-live/ Like I said, you really haven’t got a clue, "We do. We aren’t all socialist workers here…. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue Actually, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/15/boris-johnson-news-rwanda-ni-protocol-brexit-starmer-pmqs-live/ Like I said, you really haven’t got a clue,
We do. We aren’t all socialist workers here…."PMSL, imagine thinking we are going to leave the ECHR, deluded and confused | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue Actually, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/15/boris-johnson-news-rwanda-ni-protocol-brexit-starmer-pmqs-live/ Like I said, you really haven’t got a clue,
We do. We aren’t all socialist workers here…."Why do you think anyone who doesn't want to scrap human rights, is a "socialist worker"? Bizarre. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Oh wait they have all destroyed their passports
The ones who do not have families should be sent to processing Centres I’m sure we have all of airports with barracks they can be accommodated.
Oh wait they burnt one of those down last time didn’t they ?
Maybe because they deemed it as not luxurious enough ?
They could always open some more accommodation blocks in Manchester they have plenty of people who will more then welcome them | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue " How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember. "PMSL, you haven’t got a clue either | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue Actually, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/15/boris-johnson-news-rwanda-ni-protocol-brexit-starmer-pmqs-live/ Like I said, you really haven’t got a clue,
We do. We aren’t all socialist workers here….
PMSL, imagine thinking we are going to leave the ECHR, deluded and confused "But, but.. 40 new hospitals.. Leveling up..  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember.
PMSL, you haven’t got a clue either "smart answer i see you are on form today. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember.
PMSL, you haven’t got a clue either smart answer i see you are on form today. "Haha, so, are you with Mitzi? We should leave the ECHR? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember.
PMSL, you haven’t got a clue either smart answer i see you are on form today.
Haha, so, are you with Mitzi? We should leave the ECHR? "I personally think like everything rules and regulations should be updated to reflect modern day situations what applied over 70 years ago may not reflect the current day. You wouldn't for example expect the same driving standards to have not been updated for 70 years would you? Before you start banging on about me thinking driving and human right are the same as i know you will it was an example. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember. "looks closer to 5. But I suspect that Wong cahnge yet view. Are you supportive of extraditing ppl to countries they may face torture or the death penalty. (as a point of principle, not thinking about a specific case) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember.
PMSL, you haven’t got a clue either smart answer i see you are on form today.
Haha, so, are you with Mitzi? We should leave the ECHR? I personally think like everything rules and regulations should be updated to reflect modern day situations what applied over 70 years ago may not reflect the current day.
You wouldn't for example expect the same driving standards to have not been updated for 70 years would you?
Before you start banging on about me thinking driving and human right are the same as i know you will it was an example. "Are you stating that they haven’t been updated? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember. looks closer to 5. But I suspect that Wong cahnge yet view.
Are you supportive of extraditing ppl to countries they may face torture or the death penalty. (as a point of principle, not thinking about a specific case)"NO because it was 8 years.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/abu-hamza-deported-from-uk-after-1363430 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember.
PMSL, you haven’t got a clue either smart answer i see you are on form today.
Haha, so, are you with Mitzi? We should leave the ECHR? I personally think like everything rules and regulations should be updated to reflect modern day situations what applied over 70 years ago may not reflect the current day.
You wouldn't for example expect the same driving standards to have not been updated for 70 years would you?
Before you start banging on about me thinking driving and human right are the same as i know you will it was an example. "70mph on motorways were set in the 60s. Depsite cars changing weve stuck by it ! Are you against the institution, or some specific human rights that no longer make sense in 2022? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember. looks closer to 5. But I suspect that Wong cahnge yet view.
Are you supportive of extraditing ppl to countries they may face torture or the death penalty. (as a point of principle, not thinking about a specific case)NO because it was 8 years.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/abu-hamza-deported-from-uk-after-1363430"I was using the date he appealed to ECHR. The years then were UK due process. But I accept the principal of your point. I just can't type! Happy with extradition with risk of death penalty ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember.
PMSL, you haven’t got a clue either smart answer i see you are on form today.
Haha, so, are you with Mitzi? We should leave the ECHR? I personally think like everything rules and regulations should be updated to reflect modern day situations what applied over 70 years ago may not reflect the current day.
You wouldn't for example expect the same driving standards to have not been updated for 70 years would you?
Before you start banging on about me thinking driving and human right are the same as i know you will it was an example. 70mph on motorways were set in the 60s. Depsite cars changing weve stuck by it !
Are you against the institution, or some specific human rights that no longer make sense in 2022?"yep but seat belts, drink driving, drug driving, driving tests,cyclists etc etc etc are all rules that have evolved since.Cherry picking again i think. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember.
PMSL, you haven’t got a clue either smart answer i see you are on form today.
Haha, so, are you with Mitzi? We should leave the ECHR? I personally think like everything rules and regulations should be updated to reflect modern day situations what applied over 70 years ago may not reflect the current day.
You wouldn't for example expect the same driving standards to have not been updated for 70 years would you?
Before you start banging on about me thinking driving and human right are the same as i know you will it was an example. 70mph on motorways were set in the 60s. Depsite cars changing weve stuck by it !
Are you against the institution, or some specific human rights that no longer make sense in 2022?yep but seat belts, drink driving, drug driving, driving tests,cyclists etc etc etc are all rules that have evolved since.Cherry picking again i think."I agree that any laws should be continuously updated and there will always be cases where any law has been ‘abused’. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember. looks closer to 5. But I suspect that Wong cahnge yet view.
Are you supportive of extraditing ppl to countries they may face torture or the death penalty. (as a point of principle, not thinking about a specific case)NO because it was 8 years.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/abu-hamza-deported-from-uk-after-1363430I was using the date he appealed to ECHR. The years then were UK due process.
But I accept the principal of your point. I just can't type!
Happy with extradition with risk of death penalty ?"If thats the countries rules and the person gets a fair trial personally yes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember.
PMSL, you haven’t got a clue either smart answer i see you are on form today.
Haha, so, are you with Mitzi? We should leave the ECHR? I personally think like everything rules and regulations should be updated to reflect modern day situations what applied over 70 years ago may not reflect the current day.
You wouldn't for example expect the same driving standards to have not been updated for 70 years would you?
Before you start banging on about me thinking driving and human right are the same as i know you will it was an example. 70mph on motorways were set in the 60s. Depsite cars changing weve stuck by it !
Are you against the institution, or some specific human rights that no longer make sense in 2022?yep but seat belts, drink driving, drug driving, driving tests,cyclists etc etc etc are all rules that have evolved since.Cherry picking again i think."Cars and driving has changed to so rules need to be changed. Has something changed that means humans no longer require human rights? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember.
PMSL, you haven’t got a clue either smart answer i see you are on form today.
Haha, so, are you with Mitzi? We should leave the ECHR? I personally think like everything rules and regulations should be updated to reflect modern day situations what applied over 70 years ago may not reflect the current day.
You wouldn't for example expect the same driving standards to have not been updated for 70 years would you?
Before you start banging on about me thinking driving and human right are the same as i know you will it was an example. 70mph on motorways were set in the 60s. Depsite cars changing weve stuck by it !
Are you against the institution, or some specific human rights that no longer make sense in 2022?yep but seat belts, drink driving, drug driving, driving tests,cyclists etc etc etc are all rules that have evolved since.Cherry picking again i think.
Cars and driving has changed to so rules need to be changed.
Has something changed that means humans no longer require human rights?"Yes, the British government can not forcibly send refugees to Rwanda | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember.
PMSL, you haven’t got a clue either smart answer i see you are on form today.
Haha, so, are you with Mitzi? We should leave the ECHR? I personally think like everything rules and regulations should be updated to reflect modern day situations what applied over 70 years ago may not reflect the current day.
You wouldn't for example expect the same driving standards to have not been updated for 70 years would you?
Before you start banging on about me thinking driving and human right are the same as i know you will it was an example. 70mph on motorways were set in the 60s. Depsite cars changing weve stuck by it !
Are you against the institution, or some specific human rights that no longer make sense in 2022?yep but seat belts, drink driving, drug driving, driving tests,cyclists etc etc etc are all rules that have evolved since.Cherry picking again i think.
Cars and driving has changed to so rules need to be changed.
Has something changed that means humans no longer require human rights?"yes they are always changing if not why not go back to the original one the magna carta? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember.
PMSL, you haven’t got a clue either smart answer i see you are on form today.
Haha, so, are you with Mitzi? We should leave the ECHR? I personally think like everything rules and regulations should be updated to reflect modern day situations what applied over 70 years ago may not reflect the current day.
You wouldn't for example expect the same driving standards to have not been updated for 70 years would you?
Before you start banging on about me thinking driving and human right are the same as i know you will it was an example. 70mph on motorways were set in the 60s. Depsite cars changing weve stuck by it !
Are you against the institution, or some specific human rights that no longer make sense in 2022?yep but seat belts, drink driving, drug driving, driving tests,cyclists etc etc etc are all rules that have evolved since.Cherry picking again i think.
Cars and driving has changed to so rules need to be changed.
Has something changed that means humans no longer require human rights?
Yes, the British government can not forcibly send refugees to Rwanda "Fair point. It does appear that people who vote Tory support anything they say. Human rights - don't need 'em Rivers - pump human shit into them. PPE contracts - fast track Tory party donors Bullshitting the queen - crack on. Etc etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember. looks closer to 5. But I suspect that Wong cahnge yet view.
Are you supportive of extraditing ppl to countries they may face torture or the death penalty. (as a point of principle, not thinking about a specific case)NO because it was 8 years.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/abu-hamza-deported-from-uk-after-1363430I was using the date he appealed to ECHR. The years then were UK due process.
But I accept the principal of your point. I just can't type!
Happy with extradition with risk of death penalty ?If thats the countries rules and the person gets a fair trial personally yes."what if you can't guarantee a fair trial.... Eg risk of torture ? I'm not saying ECHR is perfect. Maybe we want to create our own version (depsite being part of ECHR). I guess I'm challenging whether the above case would have been quicker in a universe where we had just the Uk verison of human rights. (I don't know if we'd have that as being part of the supreme court or a separate body) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember.
PMSL, you haven’t got a clue either smart answer i see you are on form today.
Haha, so, are you with Mitzi? We should leave the ECHR? I personally think like everything rules and regulations should be updated to reflect modern day situations what applied over 70 years ago may not reflect the current day.
You wouldn't for example expect the same driving standards to have not been updated for 70 years would you?
Before you start banging on about me thinking driving and human right are the same as i know you will it was an example. 70mph on motorways were set in the 60s. Depsite cars changing weve stuck by it !
Are you against the institution, or some specific human rights that no longer make sense in 2022?yep but seat belts, drink driving, drug driving, driving tests,cyclists etc etc etc are all rules that have evolved since.Cherry picking again i think.
Cars and driving has changed to so rules need to be changed.
Has something changed that means humans no longer require human rights?yes they are always changing if not why not go back to the original one the magna carta? "If you think that's better, crack on. In the meantime, scrapping human rights might suit the agenda to treat some people as sub-human. Which is anyone's free opinion to support of course. But it seems like a large step backwards. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember. looks closer to 5. But I suspect that Wong cahnge yet view.
Are you supportive of extraditing ppl to countries they may face torture or the death penalty. (as a point of principle, not thinking about a specific case)NO because it was 8 years.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/abu-hamza-deported-from-uk-after-1363430I was using the date he appealed to ECHR. The years then were UK due process.
But I accept the principal of your point. I just can't type!
Happy with extradition with risk of death penalty ?If thats the countries rules and the person gets a fair trial personally yes.what if you can't guarantee a fair trial.... Eg risk of torture ?
I'm not saying ECHR is perfect. Maybe we want to create our own version (depsite being part of ECHR). I guess I'm challenging whether the above case would have been quicker in a universe where we had just the Uk verison of human rights. (I don't know if we'd have that as being part of the supreme court or a separate body)
"Would you trust the government to make a new charter for human rights? Would it be better, or worse for humans? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember.
PMSL, you haven’t got a clue either smart answer i see you are on form today.
Haha, so, are you with Mitzi? We should leave the ECHR? I personally think like everything rules and regulations should be updated to reflect modern day situations what applied over 70 years ago may not reflect the current day.
You wouldn't for example expect the same driving standards to have not been updated for 70 years would you?
Before you start banging on about me thinking driving and human right are the same as i know you will it was an example. 70mph on motorways were set in the 60s. Depsite cars changing weve stuck by it !
Are you against the institution, or some specific human rights that no longer make sense in 2022?yep but seat belts, drink driving, drug driving, driving tests,cyclists etc etc etc are all rules that have evolved since.Cherry picking again i think.
Cars and driving has changed to so rules need to be changed.
Has something changed that means humans no longer require human rights?
Yes, the British government can not forcibly send refugees to Rwanda
Fair point.
It does appear that people who vote Tory support anything they say.
Human rights - don't need 'em
Rivers - pump human shit into them.
PPE contracts - fast track Tory party donors
Bullshitting the queen - crack on.
Etc etc."You have a very low regard of people that vote Conservative. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember.
PMSL, you haven’t got a clue either smart answer i see you are on form today.
Haha, so, are you with Mitzi? We should leave the ECHR? I personally think like everything rules and regulations should be updated to reflect modern day situations what applied over 70 years ago may not reflect the current day.
You wouldn't for example expect the same driving standards to have not been updated for 70 years would you?
Before you start banging on about me thinking driving and human right are the same as i know you will it was an example. 70mph on motorways were set in the 60s. Depsite cars changing weve stuck by it !
Are you against the institution, or some specific human rights that no longer make sense in 2022?yep but seat belts, drink driving, drug driving, driving tests,cyclists etc etc etc are all rules that have evolved since.Cherry picking again i think.
Cars and driving has changed to so rules need to be changed.
Has something changed that means humans no longer require human rights?
Yes, the British government can not forcibly send refugees to Rwanda
Fair point.
It does appear that people who vote Tory support anything they say.
Human rights - don't need 'em
Rivers - pump human shit into them.
PPE contracts - fast track Tory party donors
Bullshitting the queen - crack on.
Etc etc.
You have a very low regard of people that vote Conservative. "THE PM and his government have a very low regard for the people who vote Conservative | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember.
PMSL, you haven’t got a clue either smart answer i see you are on form today.
Haha, so, are you with Mitzi? We should leave the ECHR? I personally think like everything rules and regulations should be updated to reflect modern day situations what applied over 70 years ago may not reflect the current day.
You wouldn't for example expect the same driving standards to have not been updated for 70 years would you?
Before you start banging on about me thinking driving and human right are the same as i know you will it was an example. 70mph on motorways were set in the 60s. Depsite cars changing weve stuck by it !
Are you against the institution, or some specific human rights that no longer make sense in 2022?yep but seat belts, drink driving, drug driving, driving tests,cyclists etc etc etc are all rules that have evolved since.Cherry picking again i think.
I agree that any laws should be continuously updated and there will always be cases where any law has been ‘abused’. "I agree. I also don't know what part of the current version has become outdated. And why there is a view it hasn't changed in 60 years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember.
PMSL, you haven’t got a clue either smart answer i see you are on form today.
Haha, so, are you with Mitzi? We should leave the ECHR? I personally think like everything rules and regulations should be updated to reflect modern day situations what applied over 70 years ago may not reflect the current day.
You wouldn't for example expect the same driving standards to have not been updated for 70 years would you?
Before you start banging on about me thinking driving and human right are the same as i know you will it was an example. 70mph on motorways were set in the 60s. Depsite cars changing weve stuck by it !
Are you against the institution, or some specific human rights that no longer make sense in 2022?yep but seat belts, drink driving, drug driving, driving tests,cyclists etc etc etc are all rules that have evolved since.Cherry picking again i think.
Cars and driving has changed to so rules need to be changed.
Has something changed that means humans no longer require human rights?
Yes, the British government can not forcibly send refugees to Rwanda
Fair point.
It does appear that people who vote Tory support anything they say.
Human rights - don't need 'em
Rivers - pump human shit into them.
PPE contracts - fast track Tory party donors
Bullshitting the queen - crack on.
Etc etc.
You have a very low regard of people that vote Conservative. "What makes you say that? I'm just commenting on what they vote for. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember.
PMSL, you haven’t got a clue either smart answer i see you are on form today.
Haha, so, are you with Mitzi? We should leave the ECHR? I personally think like everything rules and regulations should be updated to reflect modern day situations what applied over 70 years ago may not reflect the current day.
You wouldn't for example expect the same driving standards to have not been updated for 70 years would you?
Before you start banging on about me thinking driving and human right are the same as i know you will it was an example. 70mph on motorways were set in the 60s. Depsite cars changing weve stuck by it !
Are you against the institution, or some specific human rights that no longer make sense in 2022?yep but seat belts, drink driving, drug driving, driving tests,cyclists etc etc etc are all rules that have evolved since.Cherry picking again i think.
Cars and driving has changed to so rules need to be changed.
Has something changed that means humans no longer require human rights?
Yes, the British government can not forcibly send refugees to Rwanda
Fair point.
It does appear that people who vote Tory support anything they say.
Human rights - don't need 'em
Rivers - pump human shit into them.
PPE contracts - fast track Tory party donors
Bullshitting the queen - crack on.
Etc etc.
You have a very low regard of people that vote Conservative.
THE PM and his government have a very low regard for the people who vote Conservative "I can’t disagree with that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember.
PMSL, you haven’t got a clue either smart answer i see you are on form today.
Haha, so, are you with Mitzi? We should leave the ECHR? I personally think like everything rules and regulations should be updated to reflect modern day situations what applied over 70 years ago may not reflect the current day.
You wouldn't for example expect the same driving standards to have not been updated for 70 years would you?
Before you start banging on about me thinking driving and human right are the same as i know you will it was an example. 70mph on motorways were set in the 60s. Depsite cars changing weve stuck by it !
Are you against the institution, or some specific human rights that no longer make sense in 2022?yep but seat belts, drink driving, drug driving, driving tests,cyclists etc etc etc are all rules that have evolved since.Cherry picking again i think.
I agree that any laws should be continuously updated and there will always be cases where any law has been ‘abused’. I agree. I also don't know what part of the current version has become outdated. And why there is a view it hasn't changed in 60 years. "Because some Tories don’t agree with it because it prevented them forcibly sending refugees to Rwanda | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember. looks closer to 5. But I suspect that Wong cahnge yet view.
Are you supportive of extraditing ppl to countries they may face torture or the death penalty. (as a point of principle, not thinking about a specific case)NO because it was 8 years.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/abu-hamza-deported-from-uk-after-1363430I was using the date he appealed to ECHR. The years then were UK due process.
But I accept the principal of your point. I just can't type!
Happy with extradition with risk of death penalty ?If thats the countries rules and the person gets a fair trial personally yes.what if you can't guarantee a fair trial.... Eg risk of torture ?
I'm not saying ECHR is perfect. Maybe we want to create our own version (depsite being part of ECHR). I guess I'm challenging whether the above case would have been quicker in a universe where we had just the Uk verison of human rights. (I don't know if we'd have that as being part of the supreme court or a separate body)
"As you pointed out it took 5 years after the uk decision and so yes i think it would have been quicker and cheaper. Cant you see that its cases like this and the interference of these judges that fuel the haters and give them ammunition to spread it. I dont think im alone in thinking i elect a government to govern the country and make rules for the benefit of the country and people and if i dont like what they have done i will vote for someone different next time. This has been the cause of wars from the year dot countries trying to impose their version of civilization and religion on others.Let the people make up their own mind how they want to live. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember. looks closer to 5. But I suspect that Wong cahnge yet view.
Are you supportive of extraditing ppl to countries they may face torture or the death penalty. (as a point of principle, not thinking about a specific case)NO because it was 8 years.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/abu-hamza-deported-from-uk-after-1363430I was using the date he appealed to ECHR. The years then were UK due process.
But I accept the principal of your point. I just can't type!
Happy with extradition with risk of death penalty ?If thats the countries rules and the person gets a fair trial personally yes.what if you can't guarantee a fair trial.... Eg risk of torture ?
I'm not saying ECHR is perfect. Maybe we want to create our own version (depsite being part of ECHR). I guess I'm challenging whether the above case would have been quicker in a universe where we had just the Uk verison of human rights. (I don't know if we'd have that as being part of the supreme court or a separate body)
As you pointed out it took 5 years after the uk decision and so yes i think it would have been quicker and cheaper.
Cant you see that its cases like this and the interference of these judges that fuel the haters and give them ammunition to spread it.
I dont think im alone in thinking i elect a government to govern the country and make rules for the benefit of the country and people and if i dont like what they have done i will vote for someone different next time.
This has been the cause of wars from the year dot countries trying to impose their version of civilization and religion on others.Let the people make up their own mind how they want to live."The ECHR has caused wars?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember. looks closer to 5. But I suspect that Wong cahnge yet view.
Are you supportive of extraditing ppl to countries they may face torture or the death penalty. (as a point of principle, not thinking about a specific case)NO because it was 8 years.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/abu-hamza-deported-from-uk-after-1363430I was using the date he appealed to ECHR. The years then were UK due process.
But I accept the principal of your point. I just can't type!
Happy with extradition with risk of death penalty ?If thats the countries rules and the person gets a fair trial personally yes.what if you can't guarantee a fair trial.... Eg risk of torture ?
I'm not saying ECHR is perfect. Maybe we want to create our own version (depsite being part of ECHR). I guess I'm challenging whether the above case would have been quicker in a universe where we had just the Uk verison of human rights. (I don't know if we'd have that as being part of the supreme court or a separate body)
As you pointed out it took 5 years after the uk decision and so yes i think it would have been quicker and cheaper.
Cant you see that its cases like this and the interference of these judges that fuel the haters and give them ammunition to spread it.
I dont think im alone in thinking i elect a government to govern the country and make rules for the benefit of the country and people and if i dont like what they have done i will vote for someone different next time.
This has been the cause of wars from the year dot countries trying to impose their version of civilization and religion on others.Let the people make up their own mind how they want to live.
The ECHR has caused wars??"Totally missing the point as usual as i ssaid before you are on fire today. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember. looks closer to 5. But I suspect that Wong cahnge yet view.
Are you supportive of extraditing ppl to countries they may face torture or the death penalty. (as a point of principle, not thinking about a specific case)NO because it was 8 years.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/abu-hamza-deported-from-uk-after-1363430I was using the date he appealed to ECHR. The years then were UK due process.
But I accept the principal of your point. I just can't type!
Happy with extradition with risk of death penalty ?If thats the countries rules and the person gets a fair trial personally yes.what if you can't guarantee a fair trial.... Eg risk of torture ?
I'm not saying ECHR is perfect. Maybe we want to create our own version (depsite being part of ECHR). I guess I'm challenging whether the above case would have been quicker in a universe where we had just the Uk verison of human rights. (I don't know if we'd have that as being part of the supreme court or a separate body)
As you pointed out it took 5 years after the uk decision and so yes i think it would have been quicker and cheaper.
Cant you see that its cases like this and the interference of these judges that fuel the haters and give them ammunition to spread it.
I dont think im alone in thinking i elect a government to govern the country and make rules for the benefit of the country and people and if i dont like what they have done i will vote for someone different next time.
This has been the cause of wars from the year dot countries trying to impose their version of civilization and religion on others.Let the people make up their own mind how they want to live.
The ECHR has caused wars??Totally missing the point as usual as i ssaid before you are on fire today. "The post was about the ECHR, so you can agree that their laws never have it never will cause a war? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember. looks closer to 5. But I suspect that Wong cahnge yet view.
Are you supportive of extraditing ppl to countries they may face torture or the death penalty. (as a point of principle, not thinking about a specific case)NO because it was 8 years.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/abu-hamza-deported-from-uk-after-1363430I was using the date he appealed to ECHR. The years then were UK due process.
But I accept the principal of your point. I just can't type!
Happy with extradition with risk of death penalty ?If thats the countries rules and the person gets a fair trial personally yes.what if you can't guarantee a fair trial.... Eg risk of torture ?
I'm not saying ECHR is perfect. Maybe we want to create our own version (depsite being part of ECHR). I guess I'm challenging whether the above case would have been quicker in a universe where we had just the Uk verison of human rights. (I don't know if we'd have that as being part of the supreme court or a separate body)
As you pointed out it took 5 years after the uk decision and so yes i think it would have been quicker and cheaper.
Cant you see that its cases like this and the interference of these judges that fuel the haters and give them ammunition to spread it.
I dont think im alone in thinking i elect a government to govern the country and make rules for the benefit of the country and people and if i dont like what they have done i will vote for someone different next time.
This has been the cause of wars from the year dot countries trying to impose their version of civilization and religion on others.Let the people make up their own mind how they want to live.
The ECHR has caused wars??Totally missing the point as usual as i ssaid before you are on fire today.
The post was about the ECHR, so you can agree that their laws never have it never will cause a war? "I never said it has or would do try and read what is written. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"UK citizens already have the bill of rights and the great charter, there is no need for anything else." So you know more than Churchill ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember. looks closer to 5. But I suspect that Wong cahnge yet view.
Are you supportive of extraditing ppl to countries they may face torture or the death penalty. (as a point of principle, not thinking about a specific case)NO because it was 8 years.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/abu-hamza-deported-from-uk-after-1363430I was using the date he appealed to ECHR. The years then were UK due process.
But I accept the principal of your point. I just can't type!
Happy with extradition with risk of death penalty ?If thats the countries rules and the person gets a fair trial personally yes.what if you can't guarantee a fair trial.... Eg risk of torture ?
I'm not saying ECHR is perfect. Maybe we want to create our own version (depsite being part of ECHR). I guess I'm challenging whether the above case would have been quicker in a universe where we had just the Uk verison of human rights. (I don't know if we'd have that as being part of the supreme court or a separate body)
As you pointed out it took 5 years after the uk decision and so yes i think it would have been quicker and cheaper.
Cant you see that its cases like this and the interference of these judges that fuel the haters and give them ammunition to spread it.
I dont think im alone in thinking i elect a government to govern the country and make rules for the benefit of the country and people and if i dont like what they have done i will vote for someone different next time.
This has been the cause of wars from the year dot countries trying to impose their version of civilization and religion on others.Let the people make up their own mind how they want to live.
The ECHR has caused wars??Totally missing the point as usual as i ssaid before you are on fire today.
The post was about the ECHR, so you can agree that their laws never have it never will cause a war? I never said it has or would do try and read what is written. "Thanks for the clarification, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember. looks closer to 5. But I suspect that Wong cahnge yet view.
Are you supportive of extraditing ppl to countries they may face torture or the death penalty. (as a point of principle, not thinking about a specific case)NO because it was 8 years.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/abu-hamza-deported-from-uk-after-1363430I was using the date he appealed to ECHR. The years then were UK due process.
But I accept the principal of your point. I just can't type!
Happy with extradition with risk of death penalty ?If thats the countries rules and the person gets a fair trial personally yes.what if you can't guarantee a fair trial.... Eg risk of torture ?
I'm not saying ECHR is perfect. Maybe we want to create our own version (depsite being part of ECHR). I guess I'm challenging whether the above case would have been quicker in a universe where we had just the Uk verison of human rights. (I don't know if we'd have that as being part of the supreme court or a separate body)
As you pointed out it took 5 years after the uk decision and so yes i think it would have been quicker and cheaper.
Cant you see that its cases like this and the interference of these judges that fuel the haters and give them ammunition to spread it.
I dont think im alone in thinking i elect a government to govern the country and make rules for the benefit of the country and people and if i dont like what they have done i will vote for someone different next time.
This has been the cause of wars from the year dot countries trying to impose their version of civilization and religion on others.Let the people make up their own mind how they want to live."who are the haters in this situation? I accept that for every rule, there will be an adverse consequence. And that people will want to throw the baby out with the bath water because of it. And I also accept that we may have different views on whether we should send someone to another country to be tried under that countries rulea if their is a belief that country's laws have been broken, regardless of our own views on the fairness of the regime. Personally, for such big changes, a government should stand on that ticket. We can vote out the Tories next time... But almost irreversible changes shouldn't be made on a whim. That's dangerous governing imo. I mean, they've not really established the value of Rwanda to the country yet. Or been held to account by the electorate for it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember. looks closer to 5. But I suspect that Wong cahnge yet view.
Are you supportive of extraditing ppl to countries they may face torture or the death penalty. (as a point of principle, not thinking about a specific case)NO because it was 8 years.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/abu-hamza-deported-from-uk-after-1363430I was using the date he appealed to ECHR. The years then were UK due process.
But I accept the principal of your point. I just can't type!
Happy with extradition with risk of death penalty ?If thats the countries rules and the person gets a fair trial personally yes.what if you can't guarantee a fair trial.... Eg risk of torture ?
I'm not saying ECHR is perfect. Maybe we want to create our own version (depsite being part of ECHR). I guess I'm challenging whether the above case would have been quicker in a universe where we had just the Uk verison of human rights. (I don't know if we'd have that as being part of the supreme court or a separate body)
As you pointed out it took 5 years after the uk decision and so yes i think it would have been quicker and cheaper.
Cant you see that its cases like this and the interference of these judges that fuel the haters and give them ammunition to spread it.
I dont think im alone in thinking i elect a government to govern the country and make rules for the benefit of the country and people and if i dont like what they have done i will vote for someone different next time.
This has been the cause of wars from the year dot countries trying to impose their version of civilization and religion on others.Let the people make up their own mind how they want to live.who are the haters in this situation?
I accept that for every rule, there will be an adverse consequence. And that people will want to throw the baby out with the bath water because of it.
And I also accept that we may have different views on whether we should send someone to another country to be tried under that countries rulea if their is a belief that country's laws have been broken, regardless of our own views on the fairness of the regime.
Personally, for such big changes, a government should stand on that ticket. We can vote out the Tories next time... But almost irreversible changes shouldn't be made on a whim. That's dangerous governing imo.
I mean, they've not really established the value of Rwanda to the country yet. Or been held to account by the electorate for it. "They will be in the next election and labour can always stand on a ticket to reverse it thats the way it works. Anyway nice chatting got to get rail tickets to Twickenham tomorrow that is if the rail union haven't interfered with my human right to get a train to the match. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember. looks closer to 5. But I suspect that Wong cahnge yet view.
Are you supportive of extraditing ppl to countries they may face torture or the death penalty. (as a point of principle, not thinking about a specific case)NO because it was 8 years.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/abu-hamza-deported-from-uk-after-1363430I was using the date he appealed to ECHR. The years then were UK due process.
But I accept the principal of your point. I just can't type!
Happy with extradition with risk of death penalty ?If thats the countries rules and the person gets a fair trial personally yes.what if you can't guarantee a fair trial.... Eg risk of torture ?
I'm not saying ECHR is perfect. Maybe we want to create our own version (depsite being part of ECHR). I guess I'm challenging whether the above case would have been quicker in a universe where we had just the Uk verison of human rights. (I don't know if we'd have that as being part of the supreme court or a separate body)
As you pointed out it took 5 years after the uk decision and so yes i think it would have been quicker and cheaper.
Cant you see that its cases like this and the interference of these judges that fuel the haters and give them ammunition to spread it.
I dont think im alone in thinking i elect a government to govern the country and make rules for the benefit of the country and people and if i dont like what they have done i will vote for someone different next time.
This has been the cause of wars from the year dot countries trying to impose their version of civilization and religion on others.Let the people make up their own mind how they want to live.who are the haters in this situation?
I accept that for every rule, there will be an adverse consequence. And that people will want to throw the baby out with the bath water because of it.
And I also accept that we may have different views on whether we should send someone to another country to be tried under that countries rulea if their is a belief that country's laws have been broken, regardless of our own views on the fairness of the regime.
Personally, for such big changes, a government should stand on that ticket. We can vote out the Tories next time... But almost irreversible changes shouldn't be made on a whim. That's dangerous governing imo.
I mean, they've not really established the value of Rwanda to the country yet. Or been held to account by the electorate for it. They will be in the next election and labour can always stand on a ticket to reverse it thats the way it works.
Anyway nice chatting got to get rail tickets to Twickenham tomorrow that is if the rail union haven't interfered with my human right to get a train to the match. "Don’t worry, the human rights of the strikers have been protected | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! PMSL, you really haven’t got a clue How long did it take us to get rid of the hook because of them? about 8 years if i remember. looks closer to 5. But I suspect that Wong cahnge yet view.
Are you supportive of extraditing ppl to countries they may face torture or the death penalty. (as a point of principle, not thinking about a specific case)NO because it was 8 years.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/abu-hamza-deported-from-uk-after-1363430I was using the date he appealed to ECHR. The years then were UK due process.
But I accept the principal of your point. I just can't type!
Happy with extradition with risk of death penalty ?If thats the countries rules and the person gets a fair trial personally yes.what if you can't guarantee a fair trial.... Eg risk of torture ?
I'm not saying ECHR is perfect. Maybe we want to create our own version (depsite being part of ECHR). I guess I'm challenging whether the above case would have been quicker in a universe where we had just the Uk verison of human rights. (I don't know if we'd have that as being part of the supreme court or a separate body)
As you pointed out it took 5 years after the uk decision and so yes i think it would have been quicker and cheaper.
Cant you see that its cases like this and the interference of these judges that fuel the haters and give them ammunition to spread it.
I dont think im alone in thinking i elect a government to govern the country and make rules for the benefit of the country and people and if i dont like what they have done i will vote for someone different next time.
This has been the cause of wars from the year dot countries trying to impose their version of civilization and religion on others.Let the people make up their own mind how they want to live.who are the haters in this situation?
I accept that for every rule, there will be an adverse consequence. And that people will want to throw the baby out with the bath water because of it.
And I also accept that we may have different views on whether we should send someone to another country to be tried under that countries rulea if their is a belief that country's laws have been broken, regardless of our own views on the fairness of the regime.
Personally, for such big changes, a government should stand on that ticket. We can vote out the Tories next time... But almost irreversible changes shouldn't be made on a whim. That's dangerous governing imo.
I mean, they've not really established the value of Rwanda to the country yet. Or been held to account by the electorate for it. They will be in the next election and labour can always stand on a ticket to reverse it thats the way it works.
Anyway nice chatting got to get rail tickets to Twickenham tomorrow that is if the rail union haven't interfered with my human right to get a train to the match. "it's easier to leave than get back in. Good advice for the game too.... Don't leave the stadium unless it's a definite decision to stay out! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! " I'd be prepared to bet you hadn't heard of the ECHR before this Rwanda debacle.
UK is signatory and if it pulls away it breaks international law as it's embedded in the Good Friday Agreement. Now, I can guarentee you didn't know that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! I'd be prepared to bet you hadn't heard of the ECHR before this Rwanda debacle.
UK is signatory and if it pulls away it breaks international law as it's embedded in the Good Friday Agreement. Now, I can guarentee you didn't know that. "I think they really came to the fore when they tried to impose prisoners rights to vote the uk threatened to pull out over that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! " Why’s that then? BTW... ECHR is NOT an EU institution. Founded in 1953 and Originally proposed by Winston Churchill and drafted mainly by British lawyers, the Convention was based on the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was signed in Rome in 1950 and came into force in 1953. Interestingly Boris Johnson is the grandson of Sir James Fawcett, a member of the European Commission for Human Rights for 20 years and its president for half that time. The ECHR is not “some foreign court” as some are trying to to declare. It is an international body to which the UK is a founding member and signatory. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! I'd be prepared to bet you hadn't heard of the ECHR before this Rwanda debacle.
UK is signatory and if it pulls away it breaks international law as it's embedded in the Good Friday Agreement. Now, I can guarentee you didn't know that. I think they really came to the fore when they tried to impose prisoners rights to vote the uk threatened to pull out over that."That's a bit of a poor summary Costa, it's a bit like saying Beckham missed that sitter against so and so whilst playing for England and his time should be judged on that alone.. I think you yourself know we won't leave it, and yes it's fair to say any organisation gets some things wrong (in someone's opinion) but on the whole it's a good thing.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just send them back to France." "How?" Given that the Navy is now responsible for border control, I'm genuinely surprised that no one has proposed the idea of putting a landing craft in the middle of the channel, gathering up all the small boat travellers into it, then just motoring up to a beach in France and dropping them all off. I'm sure that plan would go down a storm with many people, happy that we can stop the immigrants reaching our shores, and stick two fingers up to the French at the same time. I wonder why no one has proposed it yet. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just send them back to France. How? Given that the Navy is now responsible for border control, I'm genuinely surprised that no one has proposed the idea of putting a landing craft in the middle of the channel, gathering up all the small boat travellers into it, then just motoring up to a beach in France and dropping them all off. I'm sure that plan would go down a storm with many people, happy that we can stop the immigrants reaching our shores, and stick two fingers up to the French at the same time. I wonder why no one has proposed it yet." I'm sure they have. Is it legal ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Given that the Navy is now responsible for border control, I'm genuinely surprised that no one has proposed the idea of putting a landing craft in the middle of the channel, gathering up all the small boat travellers into it, then just motoring up to a beach in France and dropping them all off. I'm sure that plan would go down a storm with many people, happy that we can stop the immigrants reaching our shores, and stick two fingers up to the French at the same time. I wonder why no one has proposed it yet." "I'm sure they have. Is it legal ?" If they claimed that they were just rescuing people in difficulty and returning them safely to their country of origin, then I can't see any law that it would break. I suspect that there would be legal challenges though, in both the British and French courts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Given that the Navy is now responsible for border control, I'm genuinely surprised that no one has proposed the idea of putting a landing craft in the middle of the channel, gathering up all the small boat travellers into it, then just motoring up to a beach in France and dropping them all off. I'm sure that plan would go down a storm with many people, happy that we can stop the immigrants reaching our shores, and stick two fingers up to the French at the same time. I wonder why no one has proposed it yet. I'm sure they have. Is it legal ? If they claimed that they were just rescuing people in difficulty and returning them safely to their country of origin, then I can't see any law that it would break. I suspect that there would be legal challenges though, in both the British and French courts." hard to prove country of origin mid-trip.... No sir, we were just on a boating trio from Folkestone and we lost our bearings. No we aren't french ... Also, once they have left french waters ... Wouldn't taking them back mean we are helping them enter France illegally ... Isn't that .... Bad ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just send them back to France. How? Given that the Navy is now responsible for border control, I'm genuinely surprised that no one has proposed the idea of putting a landing craft in the middle of the channel, gathering up all the small boat travellers into it, then just motoring up to a beach in France and dropping them all off. I'm sure that plan would go down a storm with many people, happy that we can stop the immigrants reaching our shores, and stick two fingers up to the French at the same time. I wonder why no one has proposed it yet." Why don't the French ship them to NI where they can then legally claim asylum? Sorted and saves any hassle! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"hard to prove country of origin mid-trip...." That shouldn't be a problem. We already track all vessels crossing the channel, so we'd be able to prove where the boat came from. The Royal Navy are quite good at that sort of thing. "Also, once they have left french waters ... Wouldn't taking them back mean we are helping them enter France illegally ... Isn't that .... Bad ?" I can't see how it would mean entering illegally. If we can prove that the boat set off from France, then we are just returning them to a country which they have already entered. I'm not good on French law, but I expect they wouldn't be happy. However, I don't see that the UK government would mind breaking a law, especially if it was a French one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would bet that all these, IMHO, odd people who are seemingly in favour of leaving the European Convention on HUMAN RIGHTS would be the first to shout when their own rights were harmed or removed. It’s always ok when it seemingly only impacts on other people! I find it especially confusing when a Jewish person is so in favour of leaving the Convention. After all... “In the aftermath of the Second World War, the convention, drawing on the inspiration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, can be seen as part of a wider response from the Allied powers in delivering a human rights agenda to prevent the most serious human rights violations which had occurred during the Second World War from happening again.”" Human flesh and blood rights are undeniable, unless you agree to have your ""rights given and taken from a big book. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would bet that all these, IMHO, odd people who are seemingly in favour of leaving the European Convention on HUMAN RIGHTS would be the first to shout when their own rights were harmed or removed. It’s always ok when it seemingly only impacts on other people! I find it especially confusing when a Jewish person is so in favour of leaving the Convention. After all... “In the aftermath of the Second World War, the convention, drawing on the inspiration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, can be seen as part of a wider response from the Allied powers in delivering a human rights agenda to prevent the most serious human rights violations which had occurred during the Second World War from happening again.” Human flesh and blood rights are undeniable, unless you agree to have your ""rights given and taken from a big book." And if you do agree with the script of the book, the book says you have no right to sunlight. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just send them back to France. How? Given that the Navy is now responsible for border control, I'm genuinely surprised that no one has proposed the idea of putting a landing craft in the middle of the channel, gathering up all the small boat travellers into it, then just motoring up to a beach in France and dropping them all off. I'm sure that plan would go down a storm with many people, happy that we can stop the immigrants reaching our shores, and stick two fingers up to the French at the same time. I wonder why no one has proposed it yet. Why don't the French ship them to NI where they can then legally claim asylum? Sorted and saves any hassle!" What would the residents and taxpayers in NI make of that I wonder? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just send them back to France. How? Given that the Navy is now responsible for border control, I'm genuinely surprised that no one has proposed the idea of putting a landing craft in the middle of the channel, gathering up all the small boat travellers into it, then just motoring up to a beach in France and dropping them all off. I'm sure that plan would go down a storm with many people, happy that we can stop the immigrants reaching our shores, and stick two fingers up to the French at the same time. I wonder why no one has proposed it yet. Why don't the French ship them to NI where they can then legally claim asylum? Sorted and saves any hassle! What would the residents and taxpayers in NI make of that I wonder? " They would be on British soil and the responsibility of the British Goverment. I was just pointing out that this would save the UK taxpayer all the hassle of having to use the Royal Navy to patrol the channel or having to take prospective migrants to France. It offers a safe route so also saves lives and, as far as I can see is perfectly legal as they can travel within the EU to Ireland and walk across into NI. Surely that is a saving for everyone? It also meets the goverment mantra where they continually say that migrants can enter via safe routes. All solved! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just send them back to France. How? Given that the Navy is now responsible for border control, I'm genuinely surprised that no one has proposed the idea of putting a landing craft in the middle of the channel, gathering up all the small boat travellers into it, then just motoring up to a beach in France and dropping them all off. I'm sure that plan would go down a storm with many people, happy that we can stop the immigrants reaching our shores, and stick two fingers up to the French at the same time. I wonder why no one has proposed it yet. Why don't the French ship them to NI where they can then legally claim asylum? Sorted and saves any hassle! What would the residents and taxpayers in NI make of that I wonder? They would be on British soil and the responsibility of the British Goverment. I was just pointing out that this would save the UK taxpayer all the hassle of having to use the Royal Navy to patrol the channel or having to take prospective migrants to France. It offers a safe route so also saves lives and, as far as I can see is perfectly legal as they can travel within the EU to Ireland and walk across into NI. Surely that is a saving for everyone? It also meets the goverment mantra where they continually say that migrants can enter via safe routes. All solved!" But what would the residents and taxpayers of NI think of it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just send them back to France. How? Given that the Navy is now responsible for border control, I'm genuinely surprised that no one has proposed the idea of putting a landing craft in the middle of the channel, gathering up all the small boat travellers into it, then just motoring up to a beach in France and dropping them all off. I'm sure that plan would go down a storm with many people, happy that we can stop the immigrants reaching our shores, and stick two fingers up to the French at the same time. I wonder why no one has proposed it yet. Why don't the French ship them to NI where they can then legally claim asylum? Sorted and saves any hassle! What would the residents and taxpayers in NI make of that I wonder? They would be on British soil and the responsibility of the British Goverment. I was just pointing out that this would save the UK taxpayer all the hassle of having to use the Royal Navy to patrol the channel or having to take prospective migrants to France. It offers a safe route so also saves lives and, as far as I can see is perfectly legal as they can travel within the EU to Ireland and walk across into NI. Surely that is a saving for everyone? It also meets the goverment mantra where they continually say that migrants can enter via safe routes. All solved! But what would the residents and taxpayers of NI think of it? " Some are probably nice people. And others not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just send them back to France. How? Given that the Navy is now responsible for border control, I'm genuinely surprised that no one has proposed the idea of putting a landing craft in the middle of the channel, gathering up all the small boat travellers into it, then just motoring up to a beach in France and dropping them all off. I'm sure that plan would go down a storm with many people, happy that we can stop the immigrants reaching our shores, and stick two fingers up to the French at the same time. I wonder why no one has proposed it yet. Why don't the French ship them to NI where they can then legally claim asylum? Sorted and saves any hassle! What would the residents and taxpayers in NI make of that I wonder? They would be on British soil and the responsibility of the British Goverment. I was just pointing out that this would save the UK taxpayer all the hassle of having to use the Royal Navy to patrol the channel or having to take prospective migrants to France. It offers a safe route so also saves lives and, as far as I can see is perfectly legal as they can travel within the EU to Ireland and walk across into NI. Surely that is a saving for everyone? It also meets the goverment mantra where they continually say that migrants can enter via safe routes. All solved! But what would the residents and taxpayers of NI think of it? Some are probably nice people. And others not. " What does that mean? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"hard to prove country of origin mid-trip.... That shouldn't be a problem. We already track all vessels crossing the channel, so we'd be able to prove where the boat came from. The Royal Navy are quite good at that sort of thing. Also, once they have left french waters ... Wouldn't taking them back mean we are helping them enter France illegally ... Isn't that .... Bad ? I can't see how it would mean entering illegally. If we can prove that the boat set off from France, then we are just returning them to a country which they have already entered. I'm not good on French law, but I expect they wouldn't be happy. However, I don't see that the UK government would mind breaking a law, especially if it was a French one." I thought there was a fear some boats slipped through the net. Even then, I'm not sure you can force someone back just because you've shown they've been there. Once upon a time we had a legal recourse to send them back... We decided we didn't want that. Seems odd then to resort to dodgy methods .... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"hard to prove country of origin mid-trip.... That shouldn't be a problem. We already track all vessels crossing the channel, so we'd be able to prove where the boat came from. The Royal Navy are quite good at that sort of thing. Also, once they have left french waters ... Wouldn't taking them back mean we are helping them enter France illegally ... Isn't that .... Bad ? I can't see how it would mean entering illegally. If we can prove that the boat set off from France, then we are just returning them to a country which they have already entered. I'm not good on French law, but I expect they wouldn't be happy. However, I don't see that the UK government would mind breaking a law, especially if it was a French one." untill the French start a tit for tat trade war and blockade eurotunnel and Calais. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It won't be tit for tat - it will be full implementation of any rules which the UK leaves in place!" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No faith in a ECHR that has Russia as a member "We have a Russian in the House of Lords | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No faith in a ECHR that has Russia as a member
We have a Russian in the House of Lords "yeah get rid of all those hangers on too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain is looking to get out of the ECHR anyway. And about time! " ... .. ... ... ... .... ... .. Churchill wont b happy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not good on French law, but I expect they wouldn't be happy. However, I don't see that the UK government would mind breaking a law, especially if it was a French one." "untill the French start a tit for tat trade war and blockade eurotunnel and Calais. " I don't know what the French opinion is on immigrants crossing the channel. Do they even know that the UK is trying to solve this issue? But you're right, even if they have no idea, they'll be told that the UK is doing something wrong, and they'll immediately start blockading ports. It's the French way. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
