Jump to content

  • OVF player sponsorship 2022

    £10 to enter. More details and a link to donate can be found here

Tory Sleaze


tommytunstall
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, ginge said:

I don't recall that being on there

The flight was stopped because the deportation system has not been legalised by a parliamentary bill, just a stunt to whip up the Mail and avoid cost of living headlines. By election in the offing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


On 13/06/2022 at 20:15, mr.hobblesworth said:

Support in the most mealy mouthed way from the first two, the latter 3 are peripheral figures now. Anyway, The Labour Party should be bending over backwards to support the unions, it's why the party was created. Not that the tory lickspittle Starmer would have any truck with that, the obsequious little <ovf censored>. Sick of all this kowtowing to the gammon scum. Why should public sector workers, the people who helped keep the country going during the crisis, have to take a real terms paycut? Unions should be standing up and fighting against job losses.

Seems like Streeting now going back on his appearance on QT to appear to the left as a ploy to become next leader (similar to what Starmer did). Now he is going back on what he said about backing workers. What do the Labour party actually stand for in it's current form? All I get from Starmer is he's got the moral highground. Is that it? That should be the minimum of any politician. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ginge said:

I don't recall that being on there

You cannot by their rules return anyone who claims asylum. Sorry, if someone flys in to the country for example they have got on the plane with a passport yet miraculously lose their passport in flight and then claim asylum, in these cases they should be returned on the first flight back from where they came from but no, we are not allowed to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


29 minutes ago, tommytunstall said:

So Lord Geidt now fully understands that the current administration is corrupt, how long before the penny drops with FUA, PV etc?

Why include me? I’ve not said the Government are corrupt, just no worse than certain other previous governments. That’s politicians for you, vote someone else in and they will make sure themselves and their friends are looked after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, philpvfc said:

Why include me? I’ve not said the Government are corrupt, just no worse than certain other previous governments. That’s politicians for you, vote someone else in and they will make sure themselves and their friends are looked after.

You are not included. PV is Packmoor Valiant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, philpvfc said:

You cannot by their rules return anyone who claims asylum. Sorry, if someone flys in to the country for example they have got on the plane with a passport yet miraculously lose their passport in flight and then claim asylum, in these cases they should be returned on the first flight back from where they came from but no, we are not allowed to.

I'm sorry but under the Dublin convention we could send refugees back to the first safe country they passed through. However our inept home office sent very few back. Other countries managed to do so successfully. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, ginge said:

I'm sorry but under the Dublin convention we could send refugees back to the first safe country they passed through. However our inept home office sent very few back. Other countries managed to do so successfully. 

Like who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


Why include me? I’ve not said the Government are corrupt, just no worse than certain other previous governments. That’s politicians for you, vote someone else in and they will make sure themselves and their friends are looked after.
Nobody ever has been as corrupt as this government.

Sent from my SM-A715F using onevalefan mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, tommytunstall said:

So Lord Geidt now fully understands that the current administration is corrupt, how long before the penny drops with FUA, PV etc?

It will never drop with certain individuals, they are beyond even optimists...dogs will always follow big dogs, happily sniffing each others backsides 😆

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, philpvfc said:

We are totally restricted by them, cannot enforce any law to restrict illegal immigrants and it’s not as if we are going to become a new Saudi. Should never have signed up to it and should leave asap. The ECHR have not come up with anything to reduce illegal migration or clamp down on the illegal people smugglers, complete and utter waste of time, countries like Saudi, Qatar, Pakistan, China etc. the countries which need human rights reforms need something like ECHR, we certainly don’t.

This is obviously all total waffleyboll0cks that is completely divorced from reality.

For those interested, I'm going to explain it to you. Phil, I don't expect you to agree with it, or change your mind about it, but this is the actual situation.

The ECHR (court) is a legal mechanism, to help manage a legal framework (European Convention of Human Rights). The framework is not quite the same thing as the mechanism. This framework is an internationally agreed treaty to help safeguard agreed basic human rights that was agreed a long time ago. To be clear, it has nothing to do with illegal migration and it has nothing to do with people smugglers. It cannot, and is not trying to resolve that problem. The government is absolutely loving this, because it gives them the chance to do what they do best - NOTHING to help you whatsoever, but everything to start a new argument and blame someone else for their own epically vast shortcomings.

To address your points in the post above:

1) The UK government is not restricted in any way by the ECHR, so in that sense, you are wrong. Unless by constrained, you mean that they have to follow the international laws that they have signed up to? In kind of the same way that you are restricted, by the law, to not killing people. This law, as a reminder, concerns Basic. Human. Rights. As in, things like don't regard people from elsewhere as inferior and treat them as such.

2) The fact that the ECHR is even involved in the process should be a bit of a red flag. As in, SWAT smashing through your living room window. The whole policy is a catastrophe - morally, economically, legally. It doesn't make sense, it wouldn't achieve anything even if it was enacted 100% as planned and you would still have exactly the same complaints in 2 years time. 

3) Further, the fact that the ECHR are even involved completely refutes your point about "countries like Saudi, Qatar, Pakistan, China etc." Based on the evidence, we certainly do need to be part of a framework of governance, because the slaphappy morons in charge are so intent on trying to subvert the rules that apply to everyone. We don't need reform, we just need to treat people - some of the most marginalised and desperate people - with a bit of decency and respect, like the rules say.

Just to be absolutely crystal f*cking clear on 2 points:

1) You cannot stop migrants from trying to enter 'illegally'. If you are angry about it, speak to your MP and ask what the govt has been doing for the last 12 years and why their beloved Brexit hasn't fixed it. The notion that this somehow attacks the business model of the criminals, from the most notorious criminal cartel in the country, is laughable. The smugglers still get their money, and send the people over - it's just then on the authorities in the UK to sort it out. The moronic argument that Rwanda is somehow a great place to go, therefore we are dissuading people from coming here, because we are sending them to this great place, beggars belief.

2) If you can't see that this affects you, I don't really know what to say. The pattern of behaviour could not be any clearer. Government tries ridiculous policy, obviously fails due to <insert reason here>, they throw their hands up and say - "see, we tried, but they stopped us. Give us more power, and we will sort it out." For an example of this, see - the bill that has severely restricted your right to protest against anything. It is naked authoritarianism, centralising power in the executive, and then saying - well, it's democratic, we won the election. I can 100% f*cking guarantee you if Labour win the next election, the Tories will be screaming that the government is subject to parliamentary scrutiny, etc etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ginge said:

I'm sorry but under the Dublin convention we could send refugees back to the first safe country they passed through. However our inept home office sent very few back. Other countries managed to do so successfully. 

Il ask again…..as you keep piping up with this, give me some examples whereby countries in the EU have immediately sent back asylum seekers back to the original safe country they entered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


So what you are saying is that of we are not in the ECHR we would still not be able to create no rules such as sending asylum seekers to Rwanda to be processed?
Why do we need to send people to Rwanda? As punishment? No other country in the world acts like this. Is not that the answer? It is just a smokescreen to cover incompetence over the last 12 years.

Sent from my SM-A715F using onevalefan mobile app

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fosse69 said:

Why do we need to send people to Rwanda? As punishment? No other country in the world acts like this. Is not that the answer? It is just a smokescreen to cover incompetence over the last 12 years.

Sent from my SM-A715F using onevalefan mobile app
 

It’s more of a deterrent, and not ideal by a long way but at least the Government is trying to do something unlike the previous governments who have not come up with anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

All previous governments have tried to do stuff, otherwise there wouldn't be barbaric detention centres like Yarls Wood (opened under Labour). You say "not ideal", others say it contravenes human rights. It's disgusting. These are human beings, not rubbish to be sent away for others to deal with.

Edited by mr.hobblesworth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Reporting Posts and Ignoring Users

    • Admin don't read everything. Don't assume we'll spot rule breaking. Please report posts and we'll act ASAP. If you're logged in use the orange report post button. If you're not logged in, please - Contact us here
    • If you can't get on with another user you can "ignore" them. Follow the link, type in their username and save - Click here
    • Check with admin if you wish to sell/auction any items. We're happy to support good causes but check first - Contact us here
  • Friends of OVF




×
×
  • Create New...