Amber Rudd contempt of court?
Discussion
AW111 said:
And right on cue, along come the posters who care less about the law of the land than their views on deportation.
Did you expect different? Entertaining as it can be, there is more than a corner of this place that is a cesspit of ignorance & extremism. And yes, the HO proves time & time again it's not fit for purpose. I'm looking forward to the department that doesn't answer the phone or obey the law implementing a fast track system for EU nationals. that has in no way whatsoever, disaster written all over it. Oh no siree.
Derek Smith said:
Breadvan72 said:
Derek Smith said:
...Apart from Mrs W no one is above the law, and even she is only in principle.
If by Mrs W you mean the Queen, then you are mistaken, as she is emphatically not above the law, not even "in principle" (whatever that is supposed to mean). The Civil War established that position, and the position was re affirmed after the Revolution of 1688. The Home Secretary and other Ministers act in the name of the Queen, and they are subject to the decisions of the Courts. The fundamental basis of the rule of law is that no one is above it.Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 16th September 19:19
90% of the British population wouldn't give a s
t about leaving him there, as I don't. if you're not British you've got no right to live here is my opinion. Afghanistan is a massive country. If he was scared get on a bus and go and live on the other side, the taliban threat is then gone.
t about leaving him there, as I don't. if you're not British you've got no right to live here is my opinion. Afghanistan is a massive country. If he was scared get on a bus and go and live on the other side, the taliban threat is then gone. Eddie Strohacker said:
AW111 said:
And right on cue, along come the posters who care less about the law of the land than their views on deportation.
Did you expect different? Entertaining as it can be, there is more than a corner of this place that is a cesspit of ignorance & extremism. And yes, the HO proves time & time again it's not fit for purpose. I'm looking forward to the department that doesn't answer the phone or obey the law implementing a fast track system for EU nationals. that has in no way whatsoever, disaster written all over it. Oh no siree.Breadvan72 said:
Your ignorance of history, the constitution, and the law are quite surprising. I can only suggest that you do some reading, as it's never to late to learn stuff. Your suggestion that the execution of Charles I is not relevant to the issue is quite remarkable.
Very difficult to defend against an ad hominem.Edited by Breadvan72 on Saturday 16th September 19:19
I've made my points. Nothing you posted in reply is an argument against them.
Tryke3 said:
Eu nationals the ones we want will just leave rather than put up with a stassy bs in 2019. The ones left will be the ones we dont want imo
They will, are already on an anecdotal level. I still wonder at the reasoning of a proposal that effectively guarantees Wayne off the estate a job sweeping the streets but aims to import Pierre the brain surgeon. The whole idea is perverse, unless of course what you really want is to stiff the education budget...CoolHands said:
90% of the British population wouldn't give a st about leaving him there, as I don't. if you're not British you've got no right to live here is my opinion. Afghanistan is a massive country. If he was scared get on a bus and go and live on the other side, the taliban threat is then gone.
Set aside the details of the case. Do you agree the Home Secretary should be able to ignore a court ruling and impose her own will? Any objections if she decides a murder trial verdict was wrong and decides to imprison the suspect anyway?t about leaving him there, as I don't. if you're not British you've got no right to live here is my opinion. Afghanistan is a massive country. If he was scared get on a bus and go and live on the other side, the taliban threat is then gone. That's my concern with this case.
Eddie Strohacker said:
Tryke3 said:
Eu nationals the ones we want will just leave rather than put up with a stassy bs in 2019. The ones left will be the ones we dont want imo
They will, are already on an anecdotal level. I still wonder at the reasoning of a proposal that effectively guarantees Wayne off the estate a job sweeping the streets but aims to import Pierre the brain surgeon. The whole idea is perverse, unless of course what you really want is to stiff the education budget...Certainly the most recent figures show positive net migration, not negative as your post implies.
loafer123 said:
We will have to see.
Certainly the most recent figures show positive net migration, not negative as your post implies.
I'm not implying net negative migration. I'm saying people are leaving as a result of Brexit's concomitant parochial social & attitudinal regression. Parklife mate.Certainly the most recent figures show positive net migration, not negative as your post implies.
rscott said:
Set aside the details of the case. Do you agree the Home Secretary should be able to ignore a court ruling and impose her own will? Any objections if she decides a murder trial verdict was wrong and decides to imprison the suspect anyway?
That's my concern with this case.
No. But because of continuous stupid decisions made by judiciary and politicians alike, which anyone with a brain in the real world objects to, there is no public sympathy at all. Which is fair enough, in my book.That's my concern with this case.
CoolHands said:
No. But because of continuous stupid decisions made by judiciary and politicians alike, which anyone with a brain in the real world objects to, there is no public sympathy at all. Which is fair enough, in my book.
Is this your book? Because it appears this is your book.
rscott said:
Set aside the details of the case. Do you agree the Home Secretary should be able to ignore a court ruling and impose her own will? Any objections if she decides a murder trial verdict was wrong and decides to imprison the suspect anyway?
On the one hand I think that what she did is in keeping with the wishes of the electorate and could for that reason be argued as democratic. OTOH the law is there for a reason; if she/the government wish for a different law then they should get it put into statute through the proper channels.She did the 'wrong' thing due to the 'right' intentions.
On balance I'm against her actions on the basis of what she might choose to do next regardless of the law.
The first thing to establish is whether or not there's evidence that Rudd personally went against the decision of the court, or whether the department that she is in charge of, is so incompetent, unwielding and frankly the bureaucratic behemoth of ineptitude that the decision was scribbled on a post it note, which someone used to wipe their ass on as there was no loo roll in the bogs ('not my job to refill that' attitude that is endemic within the civil service) and since there were no more post it notes (again not their job to raid the stationary cupboard) the message wasn't passed on. After 2 weeks, and probably having been batted about 30 different departments where one person starts the task then goes on maternity leave, it's quite easy to see how the monumental fk up occurred.
Rudd, personally, would be unbelievably stupid to have gone against the court, but as it stands the Government has a shocking record of disregarding legal judgements. The other day, the UN gave its verdict on human rights violations within the UK and the G's record, most notably in respect to disability rights, PIP applications etc.
Which begs the question, what on earth is the opposition doing? Labour are there to hold the Government to account and scrutinise their actions. If I was the shadow home secretary I'd find a small office in Westminster, sit down with Amber Rudd and quietly and politely say 'you broke the law, you're finished. Resign. Now'. But all labour do these days is bang on about tax cuts for millionaires, nurses using foodbanks and more of the same old left wing st.
The important stuff, like holding your opposite to account, is wantonly absent.
k up occurred.Rudd, personally, would be unbelievably stupid to have gone against the court, but as it stands the Government has a shocking record of disregarding legal judgements. The other day, the UN gave its verdict on human rights violations within the UK and the G's record, most notably in respect to disability rights, PIP applications etc.
Which begs the question, what on earth is the opposition doing? Labour are there to hold the Government to account and scrutinise their actions. If I was the shadow home secretary I'd find a small office in Westminster, sit down with Amber Rudd and quietly and politely say 'you broke the law, you're finished. Resign. Now'. But all labour do these days is bang on about tax cuts for millionaires, nurses using foodbanks and more of the same old left wing s
t.The important stuff, like holding your opposite to account, is wantonly absent.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff