As If They Havent Enough To Deal With

[mtravel]

13 minutes ago, Barry Lineker said:

I'd rather have a popular king than a President who neither side wanted🤣

If your culture went beyond elementary school you would know that our President is elected by the two houses of parliament in plenary session.

Modality foreseen by the constitution which is the fundamental law of the nation.

We have one, not like you who have sovereigns by descent and convenience of some foreign families.

See yours who have not been English since the 18th century.

And before that, the Orange.

Whose families have dragged you into I don't know how many wars for dynastic reasons.

If you are happy, we all are.

[Barry Lineker]

2 hours ago, mtravel said:

If your culture went beyond elementary school you would know that our President is elected by the two houses of parliament in plenary session.

Modality foreseen by the constitution which is the fundamental law of the nation.

We have one, not like you who have sovereigns by descent and convenience of some foreign families.

See yours who have not been English since the 18th century.

And before that, the Orange.

Whose families have dragged you into I don't know how many wars for dynastic reasons.

If you are happy, we all are.

It would appear the majority of us are happy with our King.

https://www.newsweek.com/british-support-king-charles-doubles-monarchy-poll-1742572

[mtravel]

10 minutes ago, Barry Lineker said:

It would appear the majority of us are happy with our King.

https://www.newsweek.com/british-support-king-charles-doubles-monarchy-poll-1742572

And then forget about those who elect a President and do not find him for presumed divine right.

[Brian Kirby]

21 hours ago, Barry Lineker said:

..........................You and Brian can deny that the ECHR were responsible for stopping the Rwanda flight until your blue in the face, ...................................

 

At last, he's nearly there!  🙂  His original claim was that the EHCR stopped the flight.  He now at least accepts that their judgement was responsible for the flight being cancelled, though he's very reluctant to accept that the cancellation order came from the UK Home Office, and not from the EHCR.  Probably the nearest approach to the real "real world" we can expect him to make!  It's progress folks - but not as we know it!!  😄

[Barry Lineker]

7 minutes ago, Brian Kirby said:

At last, he's nearly there!  🙂  His original claim was that the EHCR stopped the flight.  He now at least accepts that their judgement was responsible for the flight being cancelled, though he's very reluctant to accept that the cancellation order came from the UK Home Office, and not from the EHCR.  Probably the nearest approach to the real "real world" we can expect him to make!  It's progress folks - but not as we know it!!  😄

Oh dear oh dear oh dear Brian, when one is reduced to using semantics to prop up their argument, one should really concede defeat.

As Pelmetman would say........Justsayin🤣

[Bulletguy]

24 minutes ago, Brian Kirby said:

At last, he's nearly there!  🙂  His original claim was that the EHCR stopped the flight.  He now at least accepts that their judgement was responsible for the flight being cancelled, though he's very reluctant to accept that the cancellation order came from the UK Home Office, and not from the EHCR.  Probably the nearest approach to the real "real world" we can expect him to make!  It's progress folks - but not as we know it!!  😄

He'll never be 'there' as he was 'gone' a long time ago! 

He has an irrational fear of anything beginning with a letter E! 😃

[Brian Kirby]

19 minutes ago, Barry Lineker said:

Oh dear oh dear oh dear Brian, when one is reduced to using semantics to prop up their argument, one should really concede defeat.

As Pelmetman would say........Justsayin🤣

Ahem! 🙂 

semantic  (sɪˈmæntɪk)

adj

1. (Linguistics) of or relating to meaning or arising from distinctions between the meanings of different words or symbols.

So how do you present an argument without semantics?  Just use random words and hope everyone will understand?

You are yourself doing the very thing of which you accuse me.  One is not "reduced to using semantics" in argument, semantics are the basis of argument, verbal or written.

Are you really trying to argue that "the ECHR stopped" the Rwanda flight, conveys the same meaning as "the ECHR demanded temporary removal of one of only seven passengers from a Rwanda flight, eventually leading the Home Office to conclude that the ECHR ruling would apply equally to the other six passengers, and so cancelled the flight?"

The former implies a direct "stop this flight" instruction from the ECHR - which is a distortion of the truth - the second explains how and why the flight came to be cancelled, so that the reader can understand what actually happened.  What could possibly be wrong with that?

 

[Bulletguy]

32 minutes ago, Brian Kirby said:

Are you really trying to argue that "the ECHR stopped" the Rwanda flight, conveys the same meaning as "the ECHR demanded temporary removal of one of only seven passengers from a Rwanda flight, eventually leading the Home Office to conclude that the ECHR ruling would apply equally to the other six passengers, and so cancelled the flight?"

The former implies a direct "stop this flight" instruction from the ECHR - which is a distortion of the truth - the second explains how and why the flight came to be cancelled, so that the reader can understand what actually happened.  What could possibly be wrong with that?

The second doesn't suit his narrative. 😉

[Barry Lineker]

25 minutes ago, Brian Kirby said:

Ahem! 🙂 

semantic  (sɪˈmæntɪk)

adj

1. (Linguistics) of or relating to meaning or arising from distinctions between the meanings of different words or symbols.

So how do you present an argument without semantics?  Just use random words and hope everyone will understand?

You are yourself doing the very thing of which you accuse me.  One is not "reduced to using semantics" in argument, semantics are the basis of argument, verbal or written.

Are you really trying to argue that "the ECHR stopped" the Rwanda flight, conveys the same meaning as "the ECHR demanded temporary removal of one of only seven passengers from a Rwanda flight, eventually leading the Home Office to conclude that the ECHR ruling would apply equally to the other six passengers, and so cancelled the flight?"

The former implies a direct "stop this flight" instruction from the ECHR - which is a distortion of the truth - the second explains how and why the flight came to be cancelled, so that the reader can understand what actually happened.  What could possibly be wrong with that?

 

I'm not the one who is denying what even your Left wing MSN are saying. 

That the ECHR stopped/prevented/cancelled (or what ever adjective you would prefer to use) the flight to Rwanda, the unfortunate thing for ECHR lovers like you is, that they have ensured that we get a British Bill of rights sooner rather than later.

[Barryd999]

30 minutes ago, Barry Lineker said:

I'm not the one who is denying what even your Left wing MSN are saying. 

That the ECHR stopped/prevented/cancelled (or what ever adjective you would prefer to use) the flight to Rwanda, the unfortunate thing for ECHR lovers like you is, that they have ensured that we get a British Bill of rights sooner rather than later.

Is that really what you want?  A right wing Junta dictatorship that abandons the ECHR it was mainly responsible for setting up in favour of the hard right that have taken over the country and crashed the economy and becoming the most corrupt government in history producing their own bill of rights and no doubt controlling their own pet Judiciary?  Really?  Just to get shot of a few Albanians?  Haven't they done enough damage already?

Many banana republics have gone down this route before, it never ends well. We are a G7 country (For now at least) for goodness sake. Get a grip.

[Barry Lineker]

17 minutes ago, Barryd999 said:

Is that really what you want?  A right wing Junta dictatorship that abandons the ECHR it was mainly responsible for setting up in favour of the hard right that have taken over the country and crashed the economy and becoming the most corrupt government in history producing their own bill of rights and no doubt controlling their own pet Judiciary?  Really?  Just to get shot of a few Albanians?  Haven't they done enough damage already?

Many banana republics have gone down this route before, it never ends well. We are a G7 country (For now at least) for goodness sake. Get a grip.

Nope, what I want is a judicary that is not biased in favour of the criminal fraternity. If the first steps to that is getting us out of the ECHR then so be it.

 

[Barryd999]

1 hour ago, Barry Lineker said:

Nope, what I want is a judicary that is not biased in favour of the criminal fraternity. If the first steps to that is getting us out of the ECHR then so be it.

 

Why would you say the Judiciary is biased in favour of the criminal fraternity?  I think they are just upholding the law.

I am somewhat aghast though that you are still a hardcore Tory supporter.  Even your hero Nigel Farage is outraged at your Tory governments handling of all this.  Its the Tories that have allowed this to happen. As Nige says in this video, the penny is dropping. So when is it going to drop with you?  If this concerns you so much I presume like your pal on here you wont be voting Tory at the next election?  

 

[Barry Lineker]

11 hours ago, Barryd999 said:

Why would you say the Judiciary is biased in favour of the criminal fraternity?  I think they are just upholding the law.

I am somewhat aghast though that you are still a hardcore Tory supporter.  Even your hero Nigel Farage is outraged at your Tory governments handling of all this.  Its the Tories that have allowed this to happen. As Nige says in this video, the penny is dropping. So when is it going to drop with you?  If this concerns you so much I presume like your pal on here you wont be voting Tory at the next election?  

 

Our Left wing Socialist lawyers are not upholding the law, they are using the human rights act as a weapon to defend criminals and prevent them from being deported, whilst making a fortune and Mugs out of the British taxpayer at the same time!

 Taxpayers foot £55million bill for lawyer blocking deportation flights of Channel migrants

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8802225/Taxpayers-foot-55million-bill-lawyer-blocking-deportation-flights-Channel-migrants.html

I presume you're happy for this abuse of our laws to continue?

[Barryd999]

1 hour ago, Barry Lineker said:

Our Left wing Socialist lawyers are not upholding the law, they are using the human rights act as a weapon to defend criminals and prevent them from being deported, whilst making a fortune and Mugs out of the British taxpayer at the same time!

 Taxpayers foot £55million bill for lawyer blocking deportation flights of Channel migrants

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8802225/Taxpayers-foot-55million-bill-lawyer-blocking-deportation-flights-Channel-migrants.html

I presume you're happy for this abuse of our laws to continue?

 

Resorting to quoting the Daily Mail? Oh dear.

So you are going to carry on supporting the Tories who have done nothing to stop what they describe as "an invasion" and just continue to blame everyone else but them.  Was it the lefty lawyers that let hundreds of Albanians loose in Kent the other night?

[Barry Lineker]

8 minutes ago, Barryd999 said:

 

Resorting to quoting the Daily Mail? Oh dear.

So you are going to carry on supporting the Tories who have done nothing to stop what they describe as "an invasion" and just continue to blame everyone else but them.  Was it the lefty lawyers that let hundreds of Albanians loose in Kent the other night?

Well you are hardly likely to see the Guardian run a story showing the inconvienent truth behind our human rights madness are you?🤣

As for the letting hundreds of Albanians loose in Kent, I'd say that was down to incompetent civil servants at the Home Office, so hardly the fault of the Tories, in fact I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was a deliberate act engineered by the Whitehall blob.

[Barryd999]

4 minutes ago, Barry Lineker said:

Well you are hardly likely to see the Guardian run a story showing the inconvienent truth behind our human rights madness are you?🤣

As for the letting hundreds of Albanians loose in Kent, I'd say that was down to incompetent civil servants at the Home Office, so hardly the fault of the Tories, in fact I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was a deliberate act engineered by the Whitehall blob.

They must love your loyalty Dave, the Tories.  There are none so blind as those who will not see.  Thankfully the vast majority of the electorate have managed to see through their lies it seems. Finally!

[Barry Lineker]

3 minutes ago, Barryd999 said:

They must love your loyalty Dave, the Tories.  There are none so blind as those who will not see.  Thankfully the vast majority of the electorate have managed to see through their lies it seems. Finally!

You do know the next election is 2 years away?

If I were a betting man, I wouldn't be placing my bets yet🤣

[Barryd999]

8 minutes ago, Barry Lineker said:

You do know the next election is 2 years away?

If I were a betting man, I wouldn't be placing my bets yet🤣

That is true. I guess it will depend on which way Sunak goes (assuming he is still PM by then).  They can either continue with their madcap ideas and also refusing to admit Brexit was a mistake and things will just get worse for them or they can try some "grown up" ideas such as processing claims on French soil, considerably upping the ante and payments to the French and closer alignment with Europe. 

Trouble is (for Sunak) Brexit and Johnson has divided the party and the swivel eyed loops will have none of it so I cant see a way out of this for them. They will just continue to trash the country, the economy and lose control of our borders.

[Brian Kirby]

6 hours ago, Barry Lineker said:

Our Left wing Socialist lawyers are not upholding the law, they are using the human rights act as a weapon to defend criminals and prevent them from being deported, whilst making a fortune and Mugs out of the British taxpayer at the same time!

 Taxpayers foot £55million bill for lawyer blocking deportation flights of Channel migrants

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8802225/Taxpayers-foot-55million-bill-lawyer-blocking-deportation-flights-Channel-migrants.html

I presume you're happy for this abuse of our laws to continue?

Well, if you want to become a judge yourself, to help correct what you see as political bias among the judiciary, this is all you'll need:  https://tinyurl.com/26n3sqhv

But you seem to misunderstand court proceedings!  When someone is accused of a crime or misdemeanour, and the decision is made by the Crown Prosecution Service (here:  https://tinyurl.com/4sxfatk5 ) lawyers will be appointed to represent the Crown and the defendant.  It is for the prosecution lawyers to prove their case against the defendant, based on the evidence they present to the court, and for the defence lawyers to disprove the prosecution's allegations and evidence.  The judge acts as a referee between the two sides and will disallow aspects of either side's presentation, or evidence and counter evidence, if he considers either prejudice the fairness of the trial.  In most cases the hearing will be before a jury, picked at random, who will ultimately decide the question of guilt.  If the defendant is found guilty the judge will decide the penalty, otherwise the defendant, having won his case, will be free to leave.  So where might the political biases of any of the advocates skew the decision?  Do you think one of the two opposing lawyers, or the judge, would remain silent in front of blatant political bias by one of the parties?

The laws governing the trial are made in parliament by the democratically elected MPs who of course have strong political bias.  If you want the legal bias of parliament to change to the right, then more right-wing MPs will be needed.  That requires the public to be persuaded to vote in greater number for such candidates at an election.  The present government is a right-wing government - unless you see the Tory party as a left-wing party - and has been in office for 12 years to date - at present with a parliamentary majority of 78, which gives them the power to vote through any legislation they choose to bring forward - providing they can persuade any doubters to vote with the government.

In the case of immigration appeals against Home Office deportation etc. orders, there is no jury, and the appeal is argued before a specialist judge by lawyers representing the appellant and the Home Office.  Again, this procedure is that decided upon by parliament.  The government does not publish data on the success rate of deportation orders, although it is acknowledged that, for obvious reasons, Covid 19 has disrupted more recent deportation procedures.

It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that a) court proceedings are reasonably free of political bias, and b) that the laws governing prosecutions uphold a reasonable balance between left, and right, wing views.  In the end, if the public are to respect those laws, their political balance has to be neutral.  If you think that kind of neutrality is too left wing, you'll need to persuade more, and more extreme, right-wing people to stand as candidates for parliament, and a lot more of the electorate to vote for them.  

If that is your objective, you're completely wasting your time arguing with a bunch of motorhomers on here.  You need to go forth into the world as it is, and change it, by arguing your case in front of the electorate.  As things stand, as you can see from the responses to a substantial number of your views on here, you represent only a small minority of the political spectrum.  That may frustrate you, but that's democracy, and the rule of law, for you.

[Barryd999]

But but but!! Its not its not!! Its the fault of Lefties, Remoaners and probably Jeremy Corbyn the Terrorist!! (repeat).

[Bulletguy]

25 minutes ago, Brian Kirby said:

Well, if you want to become a judge yourself, to help correct what you see as political bias among the judiciary, this is all you'll need:  https://tinyurl.com/26n3sqhv

But you seem to misunderstand court proceedings!  When someone is accused of a crime or misdemeanour, and the decision is made by the Crown Prosecution Service (here:  https://tinyurl.com/4sxfatk5 ) lawyers will be appointed to represent the Crown and the defendant.  It is for the prosecution lawyers to prove their case against the defendant, based on the evidence they present to the court, and for the defence lawyers to disprove the prosecution's allegations and evidence.  The judge acts as a referee between the two sides and will disallow aspects of either side's presentation, or evidence and counter evidence, if he considers either prejudice the fairness of the trial.  In most cases the hearing will be before a jury, picked at random, who will ultimately decide the question of guilt.  If the defendant is found guilty the judge will decide the penalty, otherwise the defendant, having won his case, will be free to leave.  So where might the political biases of any of the advocates skew the decision?  Do you think one of the two opposing lawyers, or the judge, would remain silent in front of blatant political bias by one of the parties?

The laws governing the trial are made in parliament by the democratically elected MPs who of course have strong political bias.  If you want the legal bias of parliament to change to the right, then more right-wing MPs will be needed.  That requires the public to be persuaded to vote in greater number for such candidates at an election.  The present government is a right-wing government - unless you see the Tory party as a left-wing party - and has been in office for 12 years to date - at present with a parliamentary majority of 78, which gives them the power to vote through any legislation they choose to bring forward - providing they can persuade any doubters to vote with the government.

In the case of immigration appeals against Home Office deportation etc. orders, there is no jury, and the appeal is argued before a specialist judge by lawyers representing the appellant and the Home Office.  Again, this procedure is that decided upon by parliament.  The government does not publish data on the success rate of deportation orders, although it is acknowledged that, for obvious reasons, Covid 19 has disrupted more recent deportation procedures.

It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that a) court proceedings are reasonably free of political bias, and b) that the laws governing prosecutions uphold a reasonable balance between left, and right, wing views.  In the end, if the public are to respect those laws, their political balance has to be neutral.  If you think that kind of neutrality is too left wing, you'll need to persuade more, and more extreme, right-wing people to stand as candidates for parliament, and a lot more of the electorate to vote for them.  

If that is your objective, you're completely wasting your time arguing with a bunch of motorhomers on here.  You need to go forth into the world as it is, and change it, by arguing your case in front of the electorate.  As things stand, as you can see from the responses to a substantial number of your views on here, you represent only a small minority of the political spectrum.  That may frustrate you, but that's democracy, and the rule of law, for you.

There are a few bullet points in that link showing Pelmet would never make it past the toilet, let alone an interview! 😂

His idea of 'justice' is more commonly found in totalitarian regimes such as North Korea. He should go and live there though he'd only have monitored internet access from within.....no world wide web.

[Barryd999]

25 minutes ago, Bulletguy said:

There are a few bullet points in that link showing Pelmet would never make it past the toilet, let alone an interview! 😂

His idea of 'justice' is more commonly found in totalitarian regimes such as North Korea. He should go and live there though he'd only have monitored internet access from within.....no world wide web.

You make that sound like a bad thing, for the rest of us! 🤣

[Barry Lineker]

16 hours ago, Brian Kirby said:

Well, if you want to become a judge yourself, to help correct what you see as political bias among the judiciary, this is all you'll need:  https://tinyurl.com/26n3sqhv

But you seem to misunderstand court proceedings!  When someone is accused of a crime or misdemeanour, and the decision is made by the Crown Prosecution Service (here:  https://tinyurl.com/4sxfatk5 ) lawyers will be appointed to represent the Crown and the defendant.  It is for the prosecution lawyers to prove their case against the defendant, based on the evidence they present to the court, and for the defence lawyers to disprove the prosecution's allegations and evidence.  The judge acts as a referee between the two sides and will disallow aspects of either side's presentation, or evidence and counter evidence, if he considers either prejudice the fairness of the trial.  In most cases the hearing will be before a jury, picked at random, who will ultimately decide the question of guilt.  If the defendant is found guilty the judge will decide the penalty, otherwise the defendant, having won his case, will be free to leave.  So where might the political biases of any of the advocates skew the decision?  Do you think one of the two opposing lawyers, or the judge, would remain silent in front of blatant political bias by one of the parties?

The laws governing the trial are made in parliament by the democratically elected MPs who of course have strong political bias.  If you want the legal bias of parliament to change to the right, then more right-wing MPs will be needed.  That requires the public to be persuaded to vote in greater number for such candidates at an election.  The present government is a right-wing government - unless you see the Tory party as a left-wing party - and has been in office for 12 years to date - at present with a parliamentary majority of 78, which gives them the power to vote through any legislation they choose to bring forward - providing they can persuade any doubters to vote with the government.

In the case of immigration appeals against Home Office deportation etc. orders, there is no jury, and the appeal is argued before a specialist judge by lawyers representing the appellant and the Home Office.  Again, this procedure is that decided upon by parliament.  The government does not publish data on the success rate of deportation orders, although it is acknowledged that, for obvious reasons, Covid 19 has disrupted more recent deportation procedures.

It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that a) court proceedings are reasonably free of political bias, and b) that the laws governing prosecutions uphold a reasonable balance between left, and right, wing views.  In the end, if the public are to respect those laws, their political balance has to be neutral.  If you think that kind of neutrality is too left wing, you'll need to persuade more, and more extreme, right-wing people to stand as candidates for parliament, and a lot more of the electorate to vote for them.  

If that is your objective, you're completely wasting your time arguing with a bunch of motorhomers on here.  You need to go forth into the world as it is, and change it, by arguing your case in front of the electorate.  As things stand, as you can see from the responses to a substantial number of your views on here, you represent only a small minority of the political spectrum.  That may frustrate you, but that's democracy, and the rule of law, for you.

If they bring back hanging, I might consider it.