May is asking the Speaker for permission to hold an emergency debate in Parliament on the issue of Syria. Saying to Corbyn 'I see your five and raise you ten'.
So an emergency debate after the fact but no recall of Parliament before.
Oh dear ..
......................................
Anyway I'm off to the music store to look for bongos !! ..
Mrs May won't lose much, if at all, by this. She's struck a blow with a bit of aerial virtue signalling.
Jezza won't lose much either - his reaction is predictable. If you disapprove of Jihadi John being vapourised, and demand total proof of Russian involvement in Syria, you're already away with the fairies.
I couldn't prove for certain that the sun will come up tomorrow, but I suspect it will.
Not so sure on Jezza. He has raised the stakes by banging on about war power acts and allowing shadow ministers to be quizzed when exactly they would use the military. Answer: an actual live invasion of the British mainland and only then after a vote. The concept of deterrence in europe is gone for them.
The next question should be how that attitude is compatible with NATO membership.
The smaller scale of the UK involvement cuts against the huge importance of the issue as frequently flagged by the PM and government over the past week. The argument from the Conservative administration wasn't that our participation was very modest but that they lacked time to recall Parliament. That refrain is palpable nonsense.
I do not contend that there are circumstances where the royal prerogative should not override prior parliamentary scrutiny but that this was very clearly not one.
Yes - it was obviously possible, but the PM chose not to do so. If she did so because she worried she might lose a vote that's contemptible.
If it was her conviction it was the right thing to do that is the role of PM.
I have no doubt that this has exposed Kremlin loving Corbyn to far more criticism as he hands over our defence to Russian veto
I can see the Russians landing at Tilbury and claiming England is a part of Mother Russia.
Jezza would act immediately by ordering an inquiry to see if that was the case and demanding we discuss it. "We should negotiate, perhaps they'll settle for just London and its suburbs?"
Mind you, I suspect the rest of the country might be agreeable.
Mrs May won't lose much, if at all, by this. She's struck a blow with a bit of aerial virtue signalling.
Jezza won't lose much either - his reaction is predictable. If you disapprove of Jihadi John being vapourised, and demand total proof of Russian involvement in Syria, you're already away with the fairies.
I couldn't prove for certain that the sun will come up tomorrow, but I suspect it will.
Not so sure on Jezza. He has raised the stakes by banging on about war power acts and allowing shadow ministers to be quizzed when exactly they would use the military. Answer: an actual live invasion of the British mainland and only then after a vote. The concept of deterrence in europe is gone for them.
The next question should be how that attitude is compatible with NATO membership.
I'm no expert, but I suspect that answer is a simple: "it's not"
So, Labour have effectively announced this morning, a withdrawal from NATO.
BTW, Russia is claiming to have intercepted 70% of the cruise missiles, 71 of 103 launched by the US and France. They are both stating that none of their missiles were intercepted.
It would be interesting to learn the truth about this. If the Russian system is in fact not effective against western missiles they will be seriously disappointed after all the money that has been spent and more careful going forward. If they did have any material success we might expect the US in particular to start upgrading the speed and manoeuvrability of Cruise missiles. I think this is the first time the Russian system has been tested in a live firing situation.
I can see the Russians landing at Tilbury and claiming England is a part of Mother Russia.
Jezza would act immediately by ordering an inquiry to see if that was the case and demanding we discuss it. "We should negotiate, perhaps they'll settle for just London and its suburbs?"
Mind you, I suspect the rest of the country might be agreeable.
You missed the bit where BBC and Sky reporters, live at Tilbury, are accused of making up the news of the invasion, even as we see Russian tanks in the background.
It does look as if Corbyn has overplayed his hand and demonstrated his dislike of our Country to everyone. I believe this will play out today and beyond how we have, for tge first time, a malign anti west, pro Russia leader of the once great and respected labour party.
"Windrush Generation were invited as settlers and as British subjects. Minors also had the right to stay. We call on the government to stop all deportations, change the burden of proof and establish an amnesty for anyone who was a minor."
Has anyone got a link to the full facts on this story? Unbias and objective?
I could be wrong but I struggle to believe HMG and the Home Office would look to deport British subjects who’ve been living here for decades who immigrated legally under old immigration laws.
Although it seems these people were legally in the UK after 1971 when the immigration rules changed, I don't think it is relevant now. If you are going to deport the time to do so was in 1971, or shortly after, and not to say more than forty years later, you shouldn't be here.
It looks like Theresa May is the blockage here. She promised to cut immigration to 100 000 a year and failed to meet her commitment. She is not going to do ANYTHING that gets in the way of pushing people out of the UK, even if she trashes Britain's economy and reputation for fairness in doing so.
Singles Ad in the Eastern Bloc People's Paper: Sensitive, kind man seeks dominant Russian bear. Will submit to any punishment. Particularly enjoys public humiliation.
Surely there’s a good chance of an MP defection or two over this, or as least resignation of the whip? So far there’s been a pretty much unanimous feeling that the deselections aren’t going to happen, even with the boundary changes.
The smaller scale of the UK involvement cuts against the huge importance of the issue as frequently flagged by the PM and government over the past week. The argument from the Conservative administration wasn't that our participation was very modest but that they lacked time to recall Parliament. That refrain is palpable nonsense.
I do not contend that there are circumstances where the royal prerogative should not override prior parliamentary scrutiny but that this was very clearly not one.
Yes - it was obviously possible, but the PM chose not to do so. If she did so because she worried she might lose a vote that's contemptible.
If it was her conviction it was the right thing to do that is the role of PM.
If she doesn't think parliament should have a vote on/discussion about limited air strikes that's a coherent position I disagree with but fair enough.
Surely there’s a good chance of an MP defection or two over this, or as least resignation of the whip? So far there’s been a pretty much unanimous feeling that the deselections aren’t going to happen, even with the boundary changes.
John Woodcock in the HOC today will be popcorn time
Mr. Sandpit, I'll believe that when I see it (if you man Lab to Con). I suppose Lib Dems or maybe even the Luvvie Party might get one, but still think it unlikely.
The smaller scale of the UK involvement cuts against the huge importance of the issue as frequently flagged by the PM and government over the past week. The argument from the Conservative administration wasn't that our participation was very modest but that they lacked time to recall Parliament. That refrain is palpable nonsense.
I do not contend that there are circumstances where the royal prerogative should not override prior parliamentary scrutiny but that this was very clearly not one.
Yes - it was obviously possible, but the PM chose not to do so. If she did so because she worried she might lose a vote that's contemptible.
If it was her conviction it was the right thing to do that is the role of PM.
If she doesn't think parliament should have a vote on/discussion about limited air strikes that's a coherent position I disagree with but fair enough.
"Windrush Generation were invited as settlers and as British subjects. Minors also had the right to stay. We call on the government to stop all deportations, change the burden of proof and establish an amnesty for anyone who was a minor."
Has anyone got a link to the full facts on this story? Unbias and objective?
I could be wrong but I struggle to believe HMG and the Home Office would look to deport British subjects who’ve been living here for decades who immigrated legally under old immigration laws.
It's hard to find details on specific cases, but I wonder if some of these people have left the country for an extended period of time and then returned. Even so, it's still pretty poor from the Home Office and another example of them going after easy targets.
"Windrush Generation were invited as settlers and as British subjects. Minors also had the right to stay. We call on the government to stop all deportations, change the burden of proof and establish an amnesty for anyone who was a minor."
Has anyone got a link to the full facts on this story? Unbias and objective?
I could be wrong but I struggle to believe HMG and the Home Office would look to deport British subjects who’ve been living here for decades who immigrated legally under old immigration laws.
Although it seems these people were legally in the UK after 1971 when the immigration rules changed, I don't think it is relevant now. If you are going to deport the time to do so was in 1971, or shortly after, and not to say more than forty years later, you shouldn't be here.
It looks like Theresa May is the blockage here. She promised to cut immigration to 100 000 a year and failed to meet her commitment. She is not going to do ANYTHING that gets in the way of pushing people out of the UK, even if she trashes Britain's economy and reputation for fairness in doing so.
Checking out the hand carwashes throughout the country will find far more illegal immigrants than harassing 60 year olds from the West Indies.
Why are we getting involved in the Middle East again?
Yes chemical weapons are wrong, but they are going to be killing each other there regardless of what we do.
The only difference is now we'll get blamed for them killing each other (see Iraq) and then we'll be forced to take in refugees from there and then they'll start doing the same stuff over here as well.
Surely there’s a good chance of an MP defection or two over this, or as least resignation of the whip? So far there’s been a pretty much unanimous feeling that the deselections aren’t going to happen, even with the boundary changes.
John Woodcock in the HOC today will be popcorn time
He really should cross the floor.
He should call a By Election
He would probably win it TBF
Most of the other Corbyn haters in the PLP are not likely to win their seats back so will wait for deselection
"Windrush Generation were invited as settlers and as British subjects. Minors also had the right to stay. We call on the government to stop all deportations, change the burden of proof and establish an amnesty for anyone who was a minor."
Has anyone got a link to the full facts on this story? Unbias and objective?
I could be wrong but I struggle to believe HMG and the Home Office would look to deport British subjects who’ve been living here for decades who immigrated legally under old immigration laws.
It's hard to find details on specific cases, but I wonder if some of these people have left the country for an extended period of time and then returned. Even so, it's still pretty poor from the Home Office and another example of them going after easy targets.
I do wonder why these cases haven’t received a wider audience than the Guardian, we do know that a series of stories that paper ran last year about deportations turned out to be missing key pieces of information. We should, of course, be targeting criminals and car washers before old people.
Incidentally, the first item on the Commons agenda today, at 14:30, is Home Office questions.
Weatherspoons closing all its accounts with Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram due to trolling and misuse of social media.
If this is the start of a backlash on social media by business it is to be welcomed
Ironically it is Facebook's cavalier attitude to privacy that made it so useful to advertisers, and its usefulness to advertisers is what made it so open to misuse for political or other malign ends.
"Windrush Generation were invited as settlers and as British subjects. Minors also had the right to stay. We call on the government to stop all deportations, change the burden of proof and establish an amnesty for anyone who was a minor."
Has anyone got a link to the full facts on this story? Unbias and objective?
I could be wrong but I struggle to believe HMG and the Home Office would look to deport British subjects who’ve been living here for decades who immigrated legally under old immigration laws.
It's hard to find details on specific cases, but I wonder if some of these people have left the country for an extended period of time and then returned. Even so, it's still pretty poor from the Home Office and another example of them going after easy targets.
"Windrush Generation were invited as settlers and as British subjects. Minors also had the right to stay. We call on the government to stop all deportations, change the burden of proof and establish an amnesty for anyone who was a minor."
Has anyone got a link to the full facts on this story? Unbias and objective?
I could be wrong but I struggle to believe HMG and the Home Office would look to deport British subjects who’ve been living here for decades who immigrated legally under old immigration laws.
It's hard to find details on specific cases, but I wonder if some of these people have left the country for an extended period of time and then returned. Even so, it's still pretty poor from the Home Office and another example of them going after easy targets.
"Windrush Generation were invited as settlers and as British subjects. Minors also had the right to stay. We call on the government to stop all deportations, change the burden of proof and establish an amnesty for anyone who was a minor."
Has anyone got a link to the full facts on this story? Unbias and objective?
I could be wrong but I struggle to believe HMG and the Home Office would look to deport British subjects who’ve been living here for decades who immigrated legally under old immigration laws.
Although it seems these people were legally in the UK after 1971 when the immigration rules changed, I don't think it is relevant now. If you are going to deport the time to do so was in 1971, or shortly after, and not to say more than forty years later, you shouldn't be here.
It looks like Theresa May is the blockage here. She promised to cut immigration to 100 000 a year and failed to meet her commitment. She is not going to do ANYTHING that gets in the way of pushing people out of the UK, even if she trashes Britain's economy and reputation for fairness in doing so.
BTW, Russia is claiming to have intercepted 70% of the cruise missiles, 71 of 103 launched by the US and France. They are both stating that none of their missiles were intercepted.
It would be interesting to learn the truth about this. If the Russian system is in fact not effective against western missiles they will be seriously disappointed after all the money that has been spent and more careful going forward. If they did have any material success we might expect the US in particular to start upgrading the speed and manoeuvrability of Cruise missiles. I think this is the first time the Russian system has been tested in a live firing situation.
That's right. Syria has old Soviet era anti-missile systems. Russia has so far refrained from supplying Syria with their latest much more effective S-300 systems. But that could be part of their retaliation.
Surely there’s a good chance of an MP defection or two over this, or as least resignation of the whip? So far there’s been a pretty much unanimous feeling that the deselections aren’t going to happen, even with the boundary changes.
John Woodcock in the HOC today will be popcorn time
He really should cross the floor.
He should call a By Election
He would probably win it TBF
Most of the other Corbyn haters in the PLP are not likely to win their seats back so will wait for deselection
Has anyone got a link to the full facts on this story? Unbias and objective?
I could be wrong but I struggle to believe HMG and the Home Office would look to deport British subjects who’ve been living here for decades who immigrated legally under old immigration laws.
It's hard to find details on specific cases, but I wonder if some of these people have left the country for an extended period of time and then returned. Even so, it's still pretty poor from the Home Office and another example of them going after easy targets.
AFAICT, These are people who immigrated into the UK from Commonwealth countries before 1971 when any Commonwealth citizen could enter the UK freely and failed to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain after 1971, when the rules changed. As long as they didn't leave the country no-one challenged their status. Strictly speaking without ILR they have no right to be in the UK, although in most and maybe all cases they likely would have got it if they had applied. The new rules are that anyone without ILR gets deported, denied NHS treatment etc. They require a new application for ILR, which takes years under today's vastly more onerous application process.
"The former (the PM) is ready to do what she perceives to be right and is ready to face any consequences."
The latter (the LOTO) is also ready to do what he perceives to be right and is ready to face any consequences - including the barrage of criticism from the usual suspects.
Lots of activity down at Brandon's Tory troll farm today,pretending that Syrian kids matter, but we can't possibly take any in as refugees, and from neoilberal militarists telling us how "moderate" bombing is.
Surely there’s a good chance of an MP defection or two over this, or as least resignation of the whip? So far there’s been a pretty much unanimous feeling that the deselections aren’t going to happen, even with the boundary changes.
John Woodcock in the HOC today will be popcorn time
He really should cross the floor.
He should call a By Election
He would probably win it TBF
Most of the other Corbyn haters in the PLP are not likely to win their seats back so will wait for deselection
If he does defect I’m quite happy to give Labour supporters about how to keep calm when one of your MPs defects.
I was the model of calmness when Mark Reckless defected.
At no point did I say Mark Reckless was a c**t who deserves a red hot poker up his arse.
Surely there’s a good chance of an MP defection or two over this, or as least resignation of the whip? So far there’s been a pretty much unanimous feeling that the deselections aren’t going to happen, even with the boundary changes.
John Woodcock in the HOC today will be popcorn time
He really should cross the floor.
He should call a By Election
He would probably win it TBF
Most of the other Corbyn haters in the PLP are not likely to win their seats back so will wait for deselection
Barrow has trended Con at the last 2 elections and is set to have some rural wards added at the boundary changes, which would make it notionally Con.
This agrees with the other articles that were posted. These people are being required to provide documentation. It didn't mention the fee, but also doesn't say that the card is free, so it probably isn't
Surely there’s a good chance of an MP defection or two over this, or as least resignation of the whip? So far there’s been a pretty much unanimous feeling that the deselections aren’t going to happen, even with the boundary changes.
John Woodcock in the HOC today will be popcorn time
He really should cross the floor.
He should call a By Election
He would probably win it TBF
Most of the other Corbyn haters in the PLP are not likely to win their seats back so will wait for deselection
If he does defect I’m quite happy to give Labour supporters about how to keep calm when one of your MPs defects.
I was the model of calmness when Mark Reckless defected.
At no point did I say Mark Reckless was a c**t who deserves a red hot poker up his arse.
I'm not sure people would be that bothered tbh. Arguably he's more effective for the Cons as a Lab MP because he lets newspapers keep reporting about internal labour divisions.
On topic it is easier to seek forgiveness than permission.
But for those Tories who think Mrs May should fight the next election this shows nothing has changed. She’d rather hide like a coward than come defend her permission. Cf the debates.
Beth Rigby@BethRigby NEW: Tory MP tells me there’ll be “no rebellion” from May’s benches. There’s overwhelming support for PM and those Tories who were cautious on strikes are in a huge minority #syria
Beth Rigby@BethRigby NEW: Tory MP tells me there’ll be “no rebellion” from May’s benches. There’s overwhelming support for PM and those Tories who were cautious on strikes are in a huge minority #syria
Beth Rigby@BethRigby Extensive whipping operation led by chief whip Julian Lewis over the weekend to give the appearance that the party is united behind the PM, which is why we haven’t seen much public musings from sceptical MPs about the military strikes. #syria
Mr. 43, the strike wasn't to end the civil war. It was punitive action specifically against the use of chemical weapons.
Which is illegal under international law. Only the UN can punish. The government is making a somewhat rocky legal case that the strikes were to head off imminent humanitarian catastrophe, which is legal.
There is a question of whether international law is fit for purpose. But that involves changing the United Nations into a different beast, which looks to be in the too difficult basket, would cross the agendas of several vested interests, including that of the UK government and many would argue isn't a good way to go anyway.
Beth Rigby@BethRigby NEW: Tory MP tells me there’ll be “no rebellion” from May’s benches. There’s overwhelming support for PM and those Tories who were cautious on strikes are in a huge minority #syria
Beth Rigby@BethRigby NEW: Tory MP tells me there’ll be “no rebellion” from May’s benches. There’s overwhelming support for PM and those Tories who were cautious on strikes are in a huge minority #syria
Beth Rigby@BethRigby Extensive whipping operation led by chief whip Julian Lewis over the weekend to give the appearance that the party is united behind the PM, which is why we haven’t seen much public musings from sceptical MPs about the military strikes. #syria
Hmmm I’m not sure we should trust Beth Rigby given she doesn’t know who the Tory Chief Whip is.
Surely there’s a good chance of an MP defection or two over this, or as least resignation of the whip? So far there’s been a pretty much unanimous feeling that the deselections aren’t going to happen, even with the boundary changes.
John Woodcock in the HOC today will be popcorn time
He really should cross the floor.
He should call a By Election
He would probably win it TBF
Most of the other Corbyn haters in the PLP are not likely to win their seats back so will wait for deselection
If he does defect I’m quite happy to give Labour supporters about how to keep calm when one of your MPs defects.
I was the model of calmness when Mark Reckless defected.
At no point did I say Mark Reckless was a c**t who deserves a red hot poker up his arse.
On topic it is easier to seek forgiveness than permission.
But for those Tories who think Mrs May should fight the next election this shows nothing has changed. She’d rather hide like a coward than come defend her permission. Cf the debates.
Having debates instead of relying on the prerogative was invented as yet another way for Tony Blair to be a complete lying c*nt horp in 2002, gave ed miliband the chance to do his best ever turn as a complete horp in 2013, and now looks like enabling that unutterable horp Corbyn to entrust our entire defence policy to Moscow, for ever. It is obviously a really good idea.
Beth Rigby@BethRigby NEW: Tory MP tells me there’ll be “no rebellion” from May’s benches. There’s overwhelming support for PM and those Tories who were cautious on strikes are in a huge minority #syria
Beth Rigby@BethRigby NEW: Tory MP tells me there’ll be “no rebellion” from May’s benches. There’s overwhelming support for PM and those Tories who were cautious on strikes are in a huge minority #syria
Beth Rigby@BethRigby Extensive whipping operation led by chief whip Julian Lewis over the weekend to give the appearance that the party is united behind the PM, which is why we haven’t seen much public musings from sceptical MPs about the military strikes. #syria
Twitter
Beth Rigby@BethRigby Meanwhile, on the Labour benches are split between those who stand with Corbyn & and those who want to hammer him. So splits might be more obvious on Labour benches than Tories. A reason not to push for vote...
Why are we getting involved in the Middle East again?
Yes chemical weapons are wrong, but they are going to be killing each other there regardless of what we do.
The only difference is now we'll get blamed for them killing each other (see Iraq) and then we'll be forced to take in refugees from there and then they'll start doing the same stuff over here as well.
No thanks.
Agreed. Maybe >98% of deaths have been due to 'normal' bombs.
Number crunching (Private Eye-style) -
Deaths over 30 years with Assad's father in power and left alone, i.e. as a sovereign state: 30,000 (mainly in 1982)
Deaths over 18 years with Assad in power and intervention from all sides: 400,000, mainly in the seven years 2011-.
Lots of activity down at Brandon's Tory troll farm today,pretending that Syrian kids matter, but we can't possibly take any in as refugees, and from neoilberal militarists telling us how "moderate" bombing is.
We took in some extremely damaged Syrian children, most of whom will be needing NHS care for many years to come.
So give this Govt. some credit for that, or risk looking a twat.
Mr. 43, if people want to bleat about international law, perhaps they'd like to focus on the tyrant gassing people with chemical weaponry, rather than the democratic nation states blowing up chemical weapons factories?
Slightly reminds me of police top brass being shit-hot on protecting the tributes to a career criminal and rather less enthusiastic about protecting children from gang rape because it might not be 'culturally sensitive'.
Edited extra bit: perhaps a shade intemperate of me. My apologies.
"Windrush Generation were invited as settlers and as British subjects. Minors also had the right to stay. We call on the government to stop all deportations, change the burden of proof and establish an amnesty for anyone who was a minor."
Has anyone got a link to the full facts on this story? Unbias and objective?
I could be wrong but I struggle to believe HMG and the Home Office would look to deport British subjects who’ve been living here for decades who immigrated legally under old immigration laws.
Although it seems these people were legally in the UK after 1971 when the immigration rules changed, I don't think it is relevant now. If you are going to deport the time to do so was in 1971, or shortly after, and not to say more than forty years later, you shouldn't be here.
It looks like Theresa May is the blockage here. She promised to cut immigration to 100 000 a year and failed to meet her commitment. She is not going to do ANYTHING that gets in the way of pushing people out of the UK, even if she trashes Britain's economy and reputation for fairness in doing so.
That wasn’t my question.
That's presumptuous and rude of you. You and I can say what we want on here if we follow the rules and don't upset OGH who has the final say. It's nice when what we say is pertinent and interesting to at least some of the readers.
On your specific point it looks like HMG and the Home Office is deporting non-British subjects who’ve been living here for decades who immigrated legally under old (pre-1971) immigration laws. They are not residing here legally now, hence the Home Office's ability to deport. That's because of rule changes since 1971, including recent changes.
I think Theresa will be fine in the Commons today.
Jezza could end up in a lot of trouble with parts of the PLP though...
Agreed. Considering the planned level of military strikes carried out on Saturday, I think that May was right not to recall Parliament for an emergency debate last week. To have done so would have increased both expectations of the level of military intervention, as well as tensions with Russia at a time when it was quite clear that wiser heads in the Whitehouse, No10 and in Paris had prevailed and Trump was already rowing back on his earlier tweets/threats.
Decent Labour MPs seem to accept the horrific danger for European security, during a time of renewed Russian aggression, of Corbyn being Prime Minister. Let us hope they have the courage to do what is needed to stop it. The British centre-left can always be rebuilt. The future of global democracy may not be.
It's quite extraordinary. When Dave wanted to do military intervention against Syria, loads of Tories couldn't wait to side with Ed Miliband and humiliate him. In contrast, Theresa is now hailed as their warrior princess and Jezza a traitor and a coward. Theresa is mistress of all she surveys - political titanium.
On topic it is easier to seek forgiveness than permission.
But for those Tories who think Mrs May should fight the next election this shows nothing has changed. She’d rather hide like a coward than come defend her permission. Cf the debates.
Having debates instead of relying on the prerogative was invented as yet another way for Tony Blair to be a complete lying c*nt horp in 2002, gave ed miliband the chance to do his best ever turn as a complete horp in 2013, and now looks like enabling that unutterable horp Corbyn to entrust our entire defence policy to Moscow, for ever. It is obviously a really good idea.
Somebody needs to do a Venn diagram between those in favour of Parliamentary sovereignty and those in favour of the Royal prerogative.
It's quite extraordinary. When Dave wanted to do military intervention against Syria, loads of Tories couldn't wait to side with Ed Miliband and humiliate him. In contrast, Theresa is now hailed as their warrior princess and Jezza a traitor and a coward. Theresa is mistress of all she surveys - political titanium.
I am a huge fan of Ed Miliband but his actions over Syria were the worst blot on his record.
"Windrush Generation were invited as settlers and as British subjects. Minors also had the right to stay. We call on the government to stop all deportations, change the burden of proof and establish an amnesty for anyone who was a minor."
Has anyone got a link to the full facts on this story? Unbias and objective?
I could be wrong but I struggle to believe HMG and the Home Office would look to deport British subjects who’ve been living here for decades who immigrated legally under old immigration laws.
Although it seems these people were legally in the UK after 1971 when the immigration rules changed, I don't think it is relevant now. If you are going to deport the time to do so was in 1971, or shortly after, and not to say more than forty years later, you shouldn't be here.
It looks like Theresa May is the blockage here. She promised to cut immigration to 100 000 a year and failed to meet her commitment. She is not going to do ANYTHING that gets in the way of pushing people out of the UK, even if she trashes Britain's economy and reputation for fairness in doing so.
That wasn’t my question.
That's presumptuous and rude of you. You and I can say what we want on here if we follow the rules and don't upset OGH who has the final say. It's nice when what we say is pertinent and interesting to at least some of the readers.
On your specific point it looks like HMG and the Home Office is deporting non-British subjects who’ve been living here for decades who immigrated legally under old (pre-1971) immigration laws. They are not residing here legally now, hence the Home Office's ability to deport. That's because of rule changes since 1971, including recent changes.
"Windrush Generation were invited as settlers and as British subjects. Minors also had the right to stay. We call on the government to stop all deportations, change the burden of proof and establish an amnesty for anyone who was a minor."
Has anyone got a link to the full facts on this story? Unbias and objective?
I could be wrong but I struggle to believe HMG and the Home Office would look to deport British subjects who’ve been living here for decades who immigrated legally under old immigration laws.
Although it seems these people were legally in the UK after 1971 when the immigration rules changed, I don't think it is relevant now. If you are going to deport the time to do so was in 1971, or shortly after, and not to say more than forty years later, you shouldn't be here.
It looks like Theresa May is the blockage here. She promised to cut immigration to 100 000 a year and failed to meet her commitment. She is not going to do ANYTHING that gets in the way of pushing people out of the UK, even if she trashes Britain's economy and reputation for fairness in doing so.
That wasn’t my question.
That's presumptuous and rude of you. You and I can say what we want on here if we follow the rules and don't upset OGH who has the final say. It's nice when what we say is pertinent and interesting to at least some of the readers.
On your specific point it looks like HMG and the Home Office is deporting non-British subjects who’ve been living here for decades who immigrated legally under old (pre-1971) immigration laws. They are not residing here legally now, hence the Home Office's ability to deport. That's because of rule changes since 1971, including recent changes.
I asked for an objective link to the factual background behind the story. You decided to give me your (uninformed) opinion on what you thought was the policy driving it, complete with capitals and hyperbole.
It’s a classic example of your habit on here of posing as an objective analyst only interested in the evidence, but actually you’re only interested in doing that to the extent it reinforces your existing prejudices, and it makes you an unreliable source.
"Windrush Generation were invited as settlers and as British subjects. Minors also had the right to stay. We call on the government to stop all deportations, change the burden of proof and establish an amnesty for anyone who was a minor."
Has anyone got a link to the full facts on this story? Unbias and objective?
I could be wrong but I struggle to believe HMG and the Home Office would look to deport British subjects who’ve been living here for decades who immigrated legally under old immigration laws.
It's hard to find details on specific cases, but I wonder if some of these people have left the country for an extended period of time and then returned. Even so, it's still pretty poor from the Home Office and another example of them going after easy targets.
Mr. 43, if people want to bleat about international law, perhaps they'd like to focus on the tyrant gassing people with chemical weaponry, rather than the democratic nation states blowing up chemical weapons factories?
Slightly reminds me of police top brass being shit-hot on protecting the tributes to a career criminal and rather less enthusiastic about protecting children from gang rape because it might not be 'culturally sensitive'.
Edited extra bit: perhaps a shade intemperate of me. My apologies.
Surely under international law, we should arrest the tyrant, place them on trial at the ICC in The Hague and then, if convicted, lock them up.
That is rather different from dropping bombs. Are you telling me that between the UK, USA and France, we cannot organise a team to catch such people and bring them to trial?
"Windrush Generation were invited as settlers and as British subjects. Minors also had the right to stay. We call on the government to stop all deportations, change the burden of proof and establish an amnesty for anyone who was a minor."
Has anyone got a link to the full facts on this story? Unbias and objective?
I could be wrong but I struggle to believe HMG and the Home Office would look to deport British subjects who’ve been living here for decades who immigrated legally under old immigration laws.
Although it seems these people were legally in the UK after 1971 when the immigration rules changed, I don't think it is relevant now. If you are going to deport the time to do so was in 1971, or shortly after, and not to say more than forty years later, you shouldn't be here.
It looks like Theresa May is the blockage here. She promised to cut immigration to 100 000 a year and failed to meet her commitment. She is not going to do ANYTHING that gets in the way of pushing people out of the UK, even if she trashes Britain's economy and reputation for fairness in doing so.
That wasn’t my question.
That's presumptuous and rude of you. You and I can say what we want on here if we follow the rules and don't upset OGH who has the final say. It's nice when what we say is pertinent and interesting to at least some of the readers.
On your specific point it looks like HMG and the Home Office is deporting non-British subjects who’ve been living here for decades who immigrated legally under old (pre-1971) immigration laws. They are not residing here legally now, hence the Home Office's ability to deport. That's because of rule changes since 1971, including recent changes.
Those claiming goodwill and honest mistakes on the part of the Home Office should also consider the chaos of the appeals procedure - where half of all decisions are overturned, often after a delay of several years (during which time the appellant can be denied public services and the right to work...): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43737542
On topic it is easier to seek forgiveness than permission.
But for those Tories who think Mrs May should fight the next election this shows nothing has changed. She’d rather hide like a coward than come defend her permission. Cf the debates.
Having debates instead of relying on the prerogative was invented as yet another way for Tony Blair to be a complete lying c*nt horp in 2002, gave ed miliband the chance to do his best ever turn as a complete horp in 2013, and now looks like enabling that unutterable horp Corbyn to entrust our entire defence policy to Moscow, for ever. It is obviously a really good idea.
What’s a ‘horp’? Clearly something unwelcome, but I’d like to know. Might be a useful addition to one’s vocabulary.
Mrs C, a team? One imagines Assad has rather a lot of security. It's not like snatching some nobody from the middle of nowhere.
If we want to bring down Assad it would likely mean an invasion. The actions taken are about helping to prevent further use of chemical weapons, not only in Syria, but elsewhere in the world too.
On topic it is easier to seek forgiveness than permission.
But for those Tories who think Mrs May should fight the next election this shows nothing has changed. She’d rather hide like a coward than come defend her permission. Cf the debates.
Having debates instead of relying on the prerogative was invented as yet another way for Tony Blair to be a complete lying c*nt horp in 2002, gave ed miliband the chance to do his best ever turn as a complete horp in 2013, and now looks like enabling that unutterable horp Corbyn to entrust our entire defence policy to Moscow, for ever. It is obviously a really good idea.
What’s a ‘horp’? Clearly something unwelcome, but I’d like to know. Might be a useful addition to one’s vocabulary.
It is a substring of "Scunthorpe." Other substrings are available, but deprecated, so it's a way round that.
But on the plus side (for her, not the tax payer), she should take the opportunity to pay off the H2B loan. We lent her £95,000 to buy the flat, but you pay back 20% of the value of the property at the time of the valuation so she should only have to pay back £10,000.
Apparently one factor in the London house price inflation slowdown is the reluctance of lenders to mortgage flats (and most of the expensive new-builds are flats) in case of cladding issues like this.
This describes the SO24 procedure that Theresa May wants to use, somewhat long and complicated though it was used in the Norway debate. One key point is that there can be no amendments. The link is here.
Comments
Oh dear ..
......................................
Anyway I'm off to the music store to look for bongos !! ..
If this is the start of a backlash on social media by business it is to be welcomed
I have no doubt that this has exposed Kremlin loving Corbyn to far more criticism as he hands over our defence to Russian veto
Laura K will be facing the wrath of the Corbynites this morning.
https://twitter.com/MikeGapes/status/985791284429447169
I can see the Russians landing at Tilbury and claiming England is a part of Mother Russia.
Jezza would act immediately by ordering an inquiry to see if that was the case and demanding we discuss it. "We should negotiate, perhaps they'll settle for just London and its suburbs?"
Mind you, I suspect the rest of the country might be agreeable.
I'm no expert, but I suspect that answer is a simple: "it's not"
So, Labour have effectively announced this morning, a withdrawal from NATO.
Over to you Con HQ...
You missed the bit where BBC and Sky reporters, live at Tilbury, are accused of making up the news of the invasion, even as we see Russian tanks in the background.
These are very sad days
It looks like Theresa May is the blockage here. She promised to cut immigration to 100 000 a year and failed to meet her commitment. She is not going to do ANYTHING that gets in the way of pushing people out of the UK, even if she trashes Britain's economy and reputation for fairness in doing so.
Sensitive, kind man seeks dominant Russian bear. Will submit to any punishment. Particularly enjoys public humiliation.
The Donald doesn't like to share credit.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2015/11/dirty-dealings-how-car-wash-became-hub-human-trafficking
Yes chemical weapons are wrong, but they are going to be killing each other there regardless of what we do.
The only difference is now we'll get blamed for them killing each other (see Iraq) and then we'll be forced to take in refugees from there and then they'll start doing the same stuff over here as well.
No thanks.
He should call a By Election
He would probably win it TBF
Most of the other Corbyn haters in the PLP are not likely to win their seats back so will wait for deselection
Incidentally, the first item on the Commons agenda today, at 14:30, is Home Office questions.
https://calendar.parliament.uk
...........................................................................................................................................................................
It is their own stupid fault for not ponying up thousands of pounds to play tennis with a government minister.
This gives their view, I think: https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2018/04/15/immigration-minister-op-ed-in-the-voice/
Hang your f*cking head in shame, you wretched political stooge.
The latter (the LOTO) is also ready to do what he perceives to be right and is ready to face any consequences - including the barrage of criticism from the usual suspects.
I was the model of calmness when Mark Reckless defected.
At no point did I say Mark Reckless was a c**t who deserves a red hot poker up his arse.
Arguably he's more effective for the Cons as a Lab MP because he lets newspapers keep reporting about internal labour divisions.
But for those Tories who think Mrs May should fight the next election this shows nothing has changed. She’d rather hide like a coward than come defend her permission. Cf the debates.
Beth Rigby@BethRigby
NEW: Tory MP tells me there’ll be “no rebellion” from May’s benches. There’s overwhelming support for PM and those Tories who were cautious on strikes are in a huge minority #syria
Beth Rigby@BethRigby
NEW: Tory MP tells me there’ll be “no rebellion” from May’s benches. There’s overwhelming support for PM and those Tories who were cautious on strikes are in a huge minority #syria
Beth Rigby@BethRigby
Extensive whipping operation led by chief whip Julian Lewis over the weekend to give the appearance that the party is united behind the PM, which is why we haven’t seen much public musings from sceptical MPs about the military strikes. #syria
There is a question of whether international law is fit for purpose. But that involves changing the United Nations into a different beast, which looks to be in the too difficult basket, would cross the agendas of several vested interests, including that of the UK government and many would argue isn't a good way to go anyway.
c*nthorp in 2002, gave ed miliband the chance to do his best ever turn as a complete horp in 2013, and now looks like enabling that unutterable horp Corbyn to entrust our entire defence policy to Moscow, for ever. It is obviously a really good idea.Beth Rigby@BethRigby
Meanwhile, on the Labour benches are split between those who stand with Corbyn & and those who want to hammer him. So splits might be more obvious on Labour benches than Tories. A reason not to push for vote...
Jezza could end up in a lot of trouble with parts of the PLP though...
Number crunching (Private Eye-style) -
Deaths over 30 years with Assad's father in power and left alone, i.e. as a sovereign state:
30,000 (mainly in 1982)
Deaths over 18 years with Assad in power and intervention from all sides:
400,000, mainly in the seven years 2011-.
So give this Govt. some credit for that, or risk looking a twat.
Slightly reminds me of police top brass being shit-hot on protecting the tributes to a career criminal and rather less enthusiastic about protecting children from gang rape because it might not be 'culturally sensitive'.
Edited extra bit: perhaps a shade intemperate of me. My apologies.
On your specific point it looks like HMG and the Home Office is deporting non-British subjects who’ve been living here for decades who immigrated legally under old (pre-1971) immigration laws. They are not residing here legally now, hence the Home Office's ability to deport. That's because of rule changes since 1971, including recent changes.
Why Britain played second fiddle to France in Syria strikes: UK has NO ships that can fire cruise missiles and the planes that did entered service 38 years ago and will be retired next year
Yet he was nowhere near as bad as Corbyn on this.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/13/commonwealth-citizens-harassment-british-immigration-policy
Hope that helps.
It’s a classic example of your habit on here of posing as an objective analyst only interested in the evidence, but actually you’re only interested in doing that to the extent it reinforces your existing prejudices, and it makes you an unreliable source.
Sooner rather than later.
Specific cases ...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/15/why-the-children-of-windrush-demand-an-immigration-amnesty?CMP=share_btn_tw
Shades of Gordon Brown. It can be long until "British jobs for British workers".
That is rather different from dropping bombs. Are you telling me that between the UK, USA and France, we cannot organise a team to catch such people and bring them to trial?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/apr/16/value-of-london-flats-slashed-by-grenfell-style-cladding
£450k -> £50k, OUCH.
I copyrighted all the Theresa May is a pound shop Gordon Brown trademarks back in 2016.
To much derision on here if I recall.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43737542
Put cladding on all houses in the UK now.
If we want to bring down Assad it would likely mean an invasion. The actions taken are about helping to prevent further use of chemical weapons, not only in Syria, but elsewhere in the world too.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/apr/16/asking-syria-statement-debate-theresa-may-to-approve-air-strikes-very-wrong-because-they-lack-information-says-international-development-secretary-politics-live?page=with:block-5ad466bde4b0e47a8e807d37#block-5ad466bde4b0e47a8e807d37