Granny Danger Posted December 17, 2022 Author Share Posted December 17, 2022 Nutella Braverman ‘acting unlawfully over asylum seeker support’. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/17/home-secretary-suella-braverman-acting-unlawfully-over-asylum-seeker-support-high-court-rules How is it possible to be worse than Smirky Patel? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Steele Posted December 17, 2022 Share Posted December 17, 2022 Is "drowning's too good for them, starve them instead" too long for a side of the bus slogan? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamthebam Posted December 17, 2022 Share Posted December 17, 2022 On 16/12/2022 at 18:36, Granny Danger said: This is heartless and disgusting. The Gammons will lap this up but it really shows lack of compassion and humanity at the heart of government. Also the way the changes have been implemented and the timing, just ahead of a Parliamentary recess, shows the cowardly political approach. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/asylum-seekers-uk-rights-protection-manston-migrants-b2246793.html#comments-area Ministers rip up protections for torture victims and asylum seekers in processing centres f**k the Tories and their supporters. Amnesty and others have highlighted in the past cases of UK companies supplying equipment that can be used in torture to various unsavoury regimes. It may just be coincidence if some of those companies turn out to be donors to a certain Party... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetmonster Posted December 18, 2022 Share Posted December 18, 2022 18 hours ago, The Skelpit Lug said: Is "drowning's too good for them, starve them instead" too long for a side of the bus slogan? It'd work if they locked refugees inside the bus and stood it on the white cliffs of Dover as a warning across the Channel to others. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Nevis Posted December 18, 2022 Share Posted December 18, 2022 On 13/12/2022 at 18:28, Wee Bully said: 1. You told us on the Covid thread that you were going to vote Tory, and every viewpoint you put forward is a Tory one. 2. Your “focus” is the same mealy mouthed one which is trotted out by Tories trying to defend this shit. Just own it! And lastly - what is wrong with economic migration? We bloody need it! On 13/12/2022 at 18:38, Wee Bully said: 1. You said you weren’t a Tory. I pointed out the contradictions 2. I also addressed your mealy mouthed “focus” 3. What “legal routes” are those then? As an example, tell me how someone moves here from Nigeria to better their living conditions? Face it, you are just a poundshop Darren Grimes It's always chucklesome when the Covid thread's self-appointed expert leaves the comfort blanket behind and makes a c**t of himself somewhere else "I'm not a Tory" *** Evidence that he'd vote Tory *** "Waaaaah that's not relevant" Fud 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caledonian1 Posted December 18, 2022 Share Posted December 18, 2022 On 13/12/2022 at 18:50, Wee Bully said: Good to see he’s brought along his wee dotting account for support. Sweet. Many of the Tories on here are easily identified by there use of three word slogan usernames: Dawson Park Boy Negris Squash Ball (formerly know as Duries Air Freshner Toad is God 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Nevis Posted December 18, 2022 Share Posted December 18, 2022 1 hour ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said: Day of the Lords back to his abusive worst Maybe we'll get another name change if he keeps it up. The rules have never applied to him. Ah, another shite alias. Excellent 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetmonster Posted December 18, 2022 Share Posted December 18, 2022 5 hours ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said: Day of the Lords back to his abusive worst Maybe we'll get another name change if he keeps it up. The rules have never applied to him. How do you know? You joined December 4th. Let me guess; you ‘lurked a while’. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted December 18, 2022 Share Posted December 18, 2022 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clown Job Posted December 19, 2022 Share Posted December 19, 2022 Shithole UK 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted December 19, 2022 Author Share Posted December 19, 2022 10 minutes ago, Clown Job said: Shithole UK This is obnoxious. In political terms it will only make a marginal difference, a few hard line Tories who might vote Reform U.K. might stick with Sunak but otherwise it won’t shift the polls. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawson Park Boy Posted December 19, 2022 Share Posted December 19, 2022 17 minutes ago, Clown Job said: Shithole UK Good news. -4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Ian Posted December 19, 2022 Share Posted December 19, 2022 51 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said: Good news. Fantastic stuff. The quicker the treacherous route across the channel is disincentivised, the better. -5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Steele Posted December 19, 2022 Share Posted December 19, 2022 Imagine cheering on a ruling that has just set a precedent for the UK to avoid international and moral commitments to asylum seekers. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted December 19, 2022 Share Posted December 19, 2022 Looks like this decision means that there will need to be a decision making process with appeals and the like to decide whether to send people to Rwanda, thus doubling the process and kind of defeating the whole point. If people aren't put off by the prospect of drowning, or of being caught and sent back, it's hard to see how Rwanda will be an additional disincentive. It's just being cunty for the sake of it for inadequate losers to get a fleeting sense of winning by exercising their power over the weak, like a bureacratic playground bully. Disgusting. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soapy FFC Posted December 19, 2022 Share Posted December 19, 2022 16 minutes ago, coprolite said: If people aren't put off by the prospect of drowning, or of being caught and sent back, it's hard to see how Rwanda will be an additional disincentive. It's just being cunty for the sake of it for inadequate losers to get a fleeting sense of winning by exercising their power over the weak, like a bureacratic playground bully. Disgusting. This 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakedee Posted December 19, 2022 Share Posted December 19, 2022 Watching the Home Secretary's statement on this subject this afternoon. It appears that the amount of refugees agreed to be sent to Rwanda is 200 per year. Rwanda has already been paid over £150m for this, and according to the court ruling "a substantial amount more" has been promised. When asked what this figure would be, no surprise, no answer. Considering the amount of refugees arriving here, this number will barely make a dent, at an extortionate cost( remember flights, staffing etc will have to be paid). Dog whistling politics to appease the rabid at it's worst. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted December 19, 2022 Share Posted December 19, 2022 3 hours ago, coprolite said: Looks like this decision means that there will need to be a decision making process with appeals and the like to decide whether to send people to Rwanda, thus doubling the process and kind of defeating the whole point. If people aren't put off by the prospect of drowning, or of being caught and sent back, it's hard to see how Rwanda will be an additional disincentive. It's just being cunty for the sake of it for inadequate losers to get a fleeting sense of winning by exercising their power over the weak, like a bureacratic playground bully. Disgusting. 5 minutes ago, jakedee said: Watching the Home Secretary's statement on this subject this afternoon. It appears that the amount of refugees agreed to be sent to Rwanda is 200 per year. Rwanda has already been paid over £150m for this, and according to the court ruling "a substantial amount more" has been promised. When asked what this figure would be, no surprise, no answer. Considering the amount of refugees arriving here, this number will barely make a dent, at an extortionate cost( remember flights, staffing etc will have to be paid). Dog whistling politics to appease the rabid at it's worst. Two excellent posts. The Rwanda scheme is immoral, but as importantly it also won't achieve anything. It won't put people off and it cannot be delivered at scale. But then, it's not supposed to resolve the issues, it's supposed to appease and/or whip up the the very worst and thickest fucks in the whole of this stupid, horrible, backwater collection of islands. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted December 19, 2022 Share Posted December 19, 2022 https://davidallengreen.com/2022/12/how-the-government-won-but-also-lost-the-court-case-on-rwanda-removal-policy/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted December 19, 2022 Author Share Posted December 19, 2022 1 hour ago, williemillersmoustache said: https://davidallengreen.com/2022/12/how-the-government-won-but-also-lost-the-court-case-on-rwanda-removal-policy/ The government knew it was financially impractical before they went to court. The fact that it’s a complete waste of public money will not stop them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.