Who runs this country?
Discussion
paulrockliffe said:
Who runs the Country? The people do! We have an Executive and an independent Judiciary exactly so that a handful of people can't just do what they like. The Law is the Law, stick to it, even if you are the Prime Minster.
What's not to like?
A good system, to be sure, but the MPs' expenses showed that some were more equal than others. Try fiddling to that degree and most normal types would end up in jail or bankrupt. The political class needs bringing down a peg or two.What's not to like?
Vote for me. For hanging and longer jail terms. I like the three strikes and your out. I would give any convict the chance of better education and rehabilitation but if used and abused throw away the key. Investment in real jobs in industry not a degree in knitting etc. Anyone who says they will leave if such and such is done that effects them and is self serving show them the door. Slackers would have there money slashed and made to work but if show spirit helped. Greedy rich treated with scorn and outed, self made rich and job creators tax free status for 1 to 5 years. Cut tax more in work less to outlay.
Lawyers, accountants, consultants and safety people can F88k OFF NOW!!!!!
Lawyers, accountants, consultants and safety people can F88k OFF NOW!!!!!
paulrockliffe said:
Who runs the Country? The people do! We have an Executive and an independent Judiciary exactly so that a handful of people can't just do what they like. The Law is the Law, stick to it, even if you are the Prime Minster.
What's not to like?
You do sarcasm well What's not to like?
The owners run the country.
I'll point out parliament must have passed a law for the judges to have found that the government have broken it.
In any case, this was a completely pointless restriction. We have no control over something like 85% of the immigration because that comes from the EU, so we decided to limit the number of people that companies were specifically asking to bring in because they are awesome at stuff. That's the wrong way round as far as I'm concerned, but we signed away our rights to do anything about it.
In any case, this was a completely pointless restriction. We have no control over something like 85% of the immigration because that comes from the EU, so we decided to limit the number of people that companies were specifically asking to bring in because they are awesome at stuff. That's the wrong way round as far as I'm concerned, but we signed away our rights to do anything about it.
BeeRoad said:
I don't understand where the fail bit comes in - I don't always agree with their decisions, but having an independent judiciary uninfluenced by politicians is still one of the greatest strengths of this country.
Quite right, this board slags off the polticians relentlessly and suddenly it seems they should be left to making whatever decisions they want because they rule the country.People on here are never happy, bunch of Victor Meldrews.
Andy
The thing I do not like about the 'Cap' on non EU Immigration, is that although it [i]sounds]/i] as though the Government is being tough on immigration, it's totally irrelevant. The biggest problem is the influx of so called asylum seekers, all of whom seem to end up being allowed to stay here. Surely it is better to have a highly qualified surgeon from India allowed to enter the UK, than a law breaking asylum seeker from Iraq? The huge majority of migrants into the UK are from the EU, and this will continue for as long as they want to come here, regardless of the skills (not) that they have to offer this country.
It's also a shame that all the Aussies, Kiwis and South Africans , all of whom share our culture, work hard, and fit in perfectly with our society, are prevented from entering the country.
It's also a shame that all the Aussies, Kiwis and South Africans , all of whom share our culture, work hard, and fit in perfectly with our society, are prevented from entering the country.
JensenA said:
The biggest problem is the influx of so called asylum seekers, all of whom seem to end up being allowed to stay here. Surely it is better to have a highly qualified surgeon from India allowed to enter the UK, than a law breaking asylum seeker from Iraq? The huge majority of migrants into the UK are from the EU, and this will continue for as long as they want to come here, regardless of the skills (not) that they have to offer this country.
It's also a shame that all the Aussies, Kiwis and South Africans, all of whom share our culture, work hard, and fit in perfectly with our society, are prevented from entering the country.
Sums it up completely - Welcome the poncing slush but deter the productive cream. It's also a shame that all the Aussies, Kiwis and South Africans, all of whom share our culture, work hard, and fit in perfectly with our society, are prevented from entering the country.
If a modern free democratic society means anything, it means Rule of Law. That means that no-one, absolutely no-one, is free to act outside the law without being subject to the consequences of so doing.
The judges who looked at the issue decided that Theresa May had acted unlawfully. Quite right too. She should have got her act together and done the job properly. I don't agree with unrestricted immigration into the UK, but I do believe that governments and government ministers should act in accordance with the law.
If the law is s
te, (like the Human Rights legislation) then change it, don't flout it. Once you take the decision that "It's ok to break the law because I'm in the right" then you're no better than any other 3rd world tinpot dictator.
The judges who looked at the issue decided that Theresa May had acted unlawfully. Quite right too. She should have got her act together and done the job properly. I don't agree with unrestricted immigration into the UK, but I do believe that governments and government ministers should act in accordance with the law.
If the law is s
te, (like the Human Rights legislation) then change it, don't flout it. Once you take the decision that "It's ok to break the law because I'm in the right" then you're no better than any other 3rd world tinpot dictator.Gaspode said:
If a modern free democratic society means anything, it means Rule of Law. That means that no-one, absolutely no-one, is free to act outside the law without being subject to the consequences of so doing.
The judges who looked at the issue decided that Theresa May had acted unlawfully. Quite right too. She should have got her act together and done the job properly. I don't agree with unrestricted immigration into the UK, but I do believe that governments and government ministers should act in accordance with the law.
If the law is ste, (like the Human Rights legislation) then change it, don't flout it. Once you take the decision that "It's ok to break the law because I'm in the right" then you're no better than any other 3rd world tinpot dictator.
Spot onThe judges who looked at the issue decided that Theresa May had acted unlawfully. Quite right too. She should have got her act together and done the job properly. I don't agree with unrestricted immigration into the UK, but I do believe that governments and government ministers should act in accordance with the law.
If the law is s
te, (like the Human Rights legislation) then change it, don't flout it. Once you take the decision that "It's ok to break the law because I'm in the right" then you're no better than any other 3rd world tinpot dictator.Andy
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff