IS Schoolgirl wants to come home
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
jeeagles  16 Jul 20 10.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
What happened last year was a full on attempted soft-coup to usurp the democratic will of the people. And in the end, Labour pushed a policy guaranteed to ensure the defeat of their own leader. We truly live in f***ed up political times. Nothing else is comparable ever really. We've gone through a decade of very poor political leadership and since 1997 the official opposition has been piss poor. Hopefully Boris v Starmer will improve things.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 Stirlingsays  16 Jul 20 10.34pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jeeagles
Could be that lawyers who work for the government such as the CPS are just useless civil servants. The private sector who are challenging the government get much better employees who end up running rings around the civil service. Governmental lawyers aren't exclusively such and come from the same contaminated pool. The legal profession tends to filter out weak minds as it attracts high rewards. These are cultural maladies rather than intellectual ones. I'm afraid the reality that this is cultural liberalism in action has been made plain for generations.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| Badger11 Beckenham 17 Jul 20 7.06am |
|
|---|---|
|
So right now the courts are using Zoom and video technology to hear cases but apparently the Court of Appeal says this would be unfair in her case. Does that mean that all these other cases should be scrapped? She is entitled to legal representation and if that means paying for a video conference facility so she can talk to her lawyers I am fine with that. However as long as she has that I don't see that her rights are being denied by not being here in person. Once again the courts put the rest of us at risk the law firm representing her was the go to one for IRA terrorists I have no doubt that she is a test case and if she wins it means hundreds of more dangerous terrorists will return. If she comes back and loses no other country will take her so it's a home run for her, a win win. Justice yes putting innocent peoples lives at risk no. Oddly enough other democratic countries don't seem to have the same legal problems as we do. Edited by Badger11 (17 Jul 2020 7.07am)
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Matov 17 Jul 20 7.06am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jeeagles
And Starmer led the charge for his own party to adopt a policy that he knew would lead to its defeat. Both the worst types of parasites sucking us all dry.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Henry of Peckham  Eton Mess 17 Jul 20 7.48am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
So right now the courts are using Zoom and video technology to hear cases but apparently the Court of Appeal says this would be unfair in her case. Does that mean that all these other cases should be scrapped? She is entitled to legal representation and if that means paying for a video conference facility so she can talk to her lawyers I am fine with that. However as long as she has that I don't see that her rights are being denied by not being here in person. Once again the courts put the rest of us at risk the law firm representing her was the go to one for IRA terrorists I have no doubt that she is a test case and if she wins it means hundreds of more dangerous terrorists will return. If she comes back and loses no other country will take her so it's a home run for her, a win win. Justice yes putting innocent peoples lives at risk no. Oddly enough other democratic countries don't seem to have the same legal problems as we do. Edited by Badger11 (17 Jul 2020 7.07am) To be fair, she probably poses less of a risk than some of her looney compatriots but as you say, it could set a worrying precedent that allows others to regain access. I hope the taxpayer does not shell out to bring her back. Let one of her relatives drive out to pick her up ... then arrest her when she sets foot in the UK. She left this country of her own free will to fraternise with an illegal organisation and that can't be changed. Edited by Henry of Peckham (17 Jul 2020 7.49am)
Denial is not just a river in Egypt |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
eagleman13  On The Road To Hell & Alicante 17 Jul 20 8.34am |
|
|---|---|
|
It seems, although she is allowed back in the country(subject to an appeal by Home Office, which could take a few years), HOW, she gets here is down to her & her 'people'
I'm a blind man, i'm a blind man, now my room is cold, |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 17 Jul 20 8.42am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by eagleman13
It seems, although she is allowed back in the country(subject to an appeal by Home Office, which could take a few years), HOW, she gets here is down to her & her 'people' Worry not I expect someone has started a crowdfunding page that or the Guardian will pay her fare.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 17 Jul 20 7.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Spiderman
I think you have missed the point, with no majority or a very small majority it was not possible to implement change as those I mentioned would always vote against change. Is that really difficult to understand? I guess I did. I kind of thought that a Government by definition commands a majority in the Commons. And that the nature of Government is that you lead the country. My mistake.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| tonymikejoe UK 17 Jul 20 10.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Not only is she back, but she's coming to a council house near you soon. There will be no controls on how many children she can have, so could knock out 6,7,8-plus mini-jihadi's which was her life's ambition last I heard. They will be born at our expense in NHS hospitals then enjoy state education to 16 or 18 years of age on our dime. Any university degrees will also be on the taxpayer as benefit recipients do not pay. She will also bring as many relatives/husbands as she possibly can with her, who will in turn bing in their relatives. All legal costs will be met by the taxpayer-funded Legal Aid, which will cover additional immigration issues. This is happening all the time all over the county in 100's of 1000's, maybe millions of cases and continues at incredible speed. Enjoy.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| tonymikejoe UK 17 Jul 20 10.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
Worry not I expect someone has started a crowdfunding page that or the Guardian will pay her fare. Stick a completely justified 'Terror Alert' on her (if such a thing exists). That should prevent her boarding any plane or crossing any border.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
croydon proud  Any european country i fancy! 17 Jul 20 10.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by tonymikejoe
Stick a completely justified 'Terror Alert' on her (if such a thing exists). That should prevent her boarding any plane or crossing any border. Send her to Saudi first, then do it!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 17 Jul 20 10.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
I guess I did. I kind of thought that a Government by definition commands a majority in the Commons. And that the nature of Government is that you lead the country. My mistake. Don't be obtuse. A government can only implement changes if they are agreed by Parliament. Any change is voted for in the Commons, therefore a government cannot command changes. You kind of know that. "My mistake"... my ar$e!
Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.