Suella Braverman (n/g)

[Jerryattrick]

Did anyone actually read the full judgement.
The action of removing people to another country is not deemed illegal but there has to be confidence that people cannot be sent back to a country they came from at a later date. The only point about Rwanda was that they accepted that Rwanda was acting in good faith but the uk gov had not given enough evidence. Also a couple of points were a uk human rights law clause and a hangover of eu law clause still being used.
All could have have been rectified already and probably will be easily done.

Lots of soundbites for the opposition and media as they dont read actual judgements or law.

The question therefore is why did the gov make such a hash of something which they could and can easily do. Or is there a hidden motive, surely if they just intend to do nothing then why not just use soundbites? Lets face it under a competent leader like maggie or blair it would have been done at speed whether we agree with it or not.
Answers on a post card.

 

[Jerryattrick]

Astonishing sums of money clearly wasted by this Government over the last few years (esp since Johnson started) on things that are obviously useless. Can add £40m+ of public money spaffed by Johnson of the "Garden Bridge" that he promised would not spend a penny of public money.

They are supposed to be the party to trust on public spending.

Btw, I'm not objecting to the principle of, for example, "furlough", although some serious maladministration over how it was spent.

A hue and cry and witch hunt over partygate but nothing from the opposition or media on the huge amount of corruption that went on and has gone unpunished.
Have a drink at a party is a slap on the wrist (tokenism) but large scale theft and corruption seems to be ok or did i miss something.

 

[Breckland]

Look no further than the noble Baroness Mone.

 

[chris who]

A hue and cry and witch hunt over partygate but nothing from the opposition or media on the huge amount of corruption that went on and has gone unpunished.
Have a drink at a party is a slap on the wrist (tokenism) but large scale theft and corruption seems to be ok or did i miss something.

The enquiries in this period of government will probably start in the next few years.
But such is the scale of abuse and shere bad government that I believe they are in poll position to take the crown as the worst UK government of modern times?
Possibly even some Tories might agree with that statement such is the scale of their achievements.
The May government might be seen as beating this one by some or indeed Cameron or Thatcher.But for me this current government is by miles the worst on my view.

 

[Breckland]

Did anyone actually read the full judgement.
The action of removing people to another country is not deemed illegal but there has to be confidence that people cannot be sent back to a country they came from at a later date. The only point about Rwanda was that they accepted that Rwanda was acting in good faith but the uk gov had not given enough evidence. Also a couple of points were a uk human rights law clause and a hangover of eu law clause still being used.
All could have have been rectified already and probably will be easily done.

Lots of soundbites for the opposition and media as they dont read actual judgements or law.

The question therefore is why did the gov make such a hash of something which they could and can easily do. Or is there a hidden motive, surely if they just intend to do nothing then why not just use soundbites? Lets face it under a competent leader like maggie or blair it would have been done at speed whether we agree with it or not.
Answers on a post card.

You need to follow your own advice. The Court did not make any ruling on the 'principle', nor was it asked to. What you are reading is the PM's rather loose interpretation, ie saying what he would have liked the court to pronounce on.
The primary issue here is 'refoulement', that's the risk of Rwanda sending asylum seekers back to their country of origin.

We have already paid the Rwandan government £140 million on this hare-brained piece of propaganda and the court ruling cannot be set aside as something minor. That's why there is talk of changing the law and leaving the ECHR, both of which will play very well with Daily Mail readers. After all it enables them to bitch about asylum seekers and Europe at the same time.

 

[Archiepoptart]

You need to follow your own advice. The Court did not make any ruling on the 'principle', nor was it asked to. What you are reading is the PM's rather loose interpretation, ie saying what he would have liked the court to pronounce on.
The primary issue here is 'refoulement', that's the risk of Rwanda sending asylum seekers back to their country of origin.

We have already paid the Rwandan government £140 million on this hare-brained piece of propaganda and the court ruling cannot be set aside as something minor. That's why there is talk of changing the law and leaving the ECHR, both of which will play very well with Daily Mail readers. After all it enables them to bitch about asylum seekers and Europe at the same time.

That will be the Daily Mail that actively supported the Nazi Party and UKs Blackshirts during the 1930's.
Leopards tend not to change their spots

 

[shotshy]

That will be the Daily Mail that actively supported the Nazi Party and UKs Blackshirts during the 1930's.
Leopards tend not to change their spots

I invoke Godwins Law

 

[Gills 58]

That will be the Daily Mail that actively supported the Nazi Party and UKs Blackshirts during the 1930's.
Leopards tend not to change their spots

"Enemies of the People" from the DM was truly shocking.

 

[LancsGordoRoad]

"Recorded by Hansard". Yes, I know, obviously. The point MM and I make is that such things should at the very least get the same level of publicity as the original untruth/mistake. How many people scour Hansard for corrections ffs?

As for away from PMQ's, he may well be effective. However, PMQ's and the soundbites it produces are what is seen by most of the public.

Please see post #156 - the one after yours, it`s from someone who had just scoured Hansard FGS. Had to laugh.

But, back to questions (and lack of answers) in Parliament. What i`m really alluding to, 58, are very serious issues, such as the murder of PC Yvonne Fletcher (1984), that are, time and time again, subject to carefully scripted "avoidance-navigation" statements from the Commons` Despatch Box (DB). The circumstances surrounding that murder, prior to the murder and subsequent to the murder are politically murky in the extreme. Slippery, diversionary "answers" to many questions relating to the murder were given from the DB but none addressed the real reasons for lack of justice nor addressed the unsavoury politics behind related "dealings" with Libya and certain Libyans. (see the book i`ve referenced several times). The matter of seeking justice for Yvonne`s remains a current issue, both in Parliament and in the media.

This is the kind of political "language" that i`m alluding to. I`m simply suggesting to MM that, the world of politics is frequenting more about not answering questions than answering them and there`s no easy fix. Sometimes, as in the murder i`ve referenced above, there`s more than a politician`s reputation on the line. In such serious matters, if politicians/ministers answered simple questions with simple truths it could be very costly. Far easier to claim National Security/Public Interest prevents certain questions being answered. I don`t like it (especially in relation to Yvonne) but it`s the way of the political world. Until Buddha gets his way, it will remain so. I don`t care for the vast majority of politicians. (some are OK )

 

[Jerryattrick]

"Enemies of the People" from the DM was truly shocking.

Totally agree. The courts were just interpreting current law and nothing else which is their role. Courts do not make law.
It is up to the government to simply change the laws they dont like or they believe have been misinterpreted.

 

[Jerryattrick]

You need to follow your own advice. The Court did not make any ruling on the 'principle', nor was it asked to. What you are reading is the PM's rather loose interpretation, ie saying what he would have liked the court to pronounce on.
The primary issue here is 'refoulement', that's the risk of Rwanda sending asylum seekers back to their country of origin.

We have already paid the Rwandan government £140 million on this hare-brained piece of propaganda and the court ruling cannot be set aside as something minor. That's why there is talk of changing the law and leaving the ECHR, both of which will play very well with Daily Mail readers. After all it enables them to bitch about asylum seekers and Europe at the same time.

I did not listen to anyone at all. As you seem to have ignored that i said that i read the full ruling in detail plus the rulings from the original case and appeal.
Simply hating a political party does not mean that should obscure your reasoning.

Because you dont like the actual facts you somehow assume i read the PMs quote or the f daily mail ffs. I dont read any newspapers and specifically not the DM or Guardian.

Whether anyone likes it or not a government can easily do what it likes on this subject if it has the votes and willpower.

 

[Gills 58]

Totally agree. The courts were just interpreting current law and nothing else which is their role. Courts do not make law.
It is up to the government to simply change the laws they dont like or they believe have been misinterpreted.

Yep, imo that headline was truly reminiscent of 1930's Nazi Germany. Scary, as millions will have read and agreed with it, sadly.

 

[Jerryattrick]

Yep, imo that headline was truly reminiscent of 1930's Nazi Germany. Scary, as millions will have read and agreed with it, sadly.

It was everybody stopping us when in truth they had the power to go away and amend any laws or use get out clauses in treaties.
Basically enough on both sides did not want to be seen to back Mays deal.
Yet under Boris we could suddenly use the same laws and treaty get out clauses to just get it done lol.

 

[Buddha]

London Mayor Sadiq Khan says, "I’ve spent more time with the new Home Secretary, James Cleverly, in the last week, than the previous one in the last year".

Not just Cleverly either, Khan says he also met with previous Home Secretaries far more than he did with Braverman:

'I've spent more time with James Cleverly this week than with Suella Braverman in the last year', Sadiq Khan tells LBC

Sadiq Khan has told LBC he has spent more time with the new Home Secretary James Cleverly this week than he did with his predecessor Suella Braverman during her entire time in office.

www.lbc.co.uk

 

[Buddha]

Up yours Braverman!

Court rules UK government anti-protest powers unlawful

The UK government acted unlawfully by changing legislation to give police tougher powers to clamp down on street protests, judges ruled on Tuesday. Civil liberties group Liberty brought a legal challenge to the amendments, which campaigners said gave police “almost unlimited” powers to restrict...

guardian.ng

Breaking News: High Court rules parts of the 2022 Police Act discriminates against Gypsies and Travellers

A landmark legal decision handed down this morning has found the 2022 Police Act to be incompatible with the Human Rights Act. In January 2024 Drive 2 Survive supported the court case that led to this important judgement. In a landmark decision handed down today, the High Court has decided that...

www.drive2survive.org.uk