How is the Tory Government Doing?

They truly are the nasty party with cutting welfare payments for those in need including pensioners and the disabled whilst giving jobs for their friends along with tax breaks etc!

Rant over!

They won't be in long enough to bring it in with a bit of luck KP, there has to be a GE at some point next year, the sooner the better for me.

Norpig wrote:They won't be in long enough to bring it in with a bit of luck KP, there has to be a GE at some point next year, the sooner the better for me.

Yes and I can’t wait Norpig.

I will be watching all this very closely.

I may even get the champers out to celebrate afterwards!

It seems to me that even Rishi has run out of ideas to bring bloody Cameron back!

It does smack of desperation, but at least poor old Therese has been put out of her misery, she was a car crash in every interview. 

Surprised 30p Anderson has survived to be honest, he was nearly as bad as Cruella.

karlypants wrote:

Yes and I can’t wait Norpig.

I will be watching all this very closely.

I may even get the champers out to celebrate afterwards!

I doubt you’ll be celebrating for long if Labour get in Karly, they’ll be even worse. I know you find that difficult to believe but trust me they’re at least as untrustworthy, disingenuous and devious as the lot in now. I’ve voted Tory all my life other than my very first time when I was 18 and voted Labour, a mistake I’ll never make again. For me the whole lot want turfing out and start again, preferably bringing in PR which I believe it’s time for.

Esther McVey Is back.

God help us!

Whitesince63 wrote:Sluffy, I didn’t even bother reading your reply because it’s so long and I can imagine exactly what it contains. I apologise for my insults in the last post but you really must be one of the most conceited and arrogant individuals I’ve ever encountered believing that you know at all where I stand politically. Why you have to label as far right people who regret the country’s demise as I do is patently just ridiculous. We care Sluffy about what’s happening and the dumbing down of what was a peaceful, organised, humane and accommodating country into something almost unrecognisable and increasingly unsafe. If that is far right the co7nt me in but it’s not how I see it. If you’re content with a country where Muslim immigrants flagrantly parade their antisemitic and warlike views on our streets, where children down tools because they’re denied of bringing in litters because they identify as bloody cats then you carry on. As for me and I suggest the vast majority of normal people in this country things have gone too far and someone needs to be brave enough to stand up and say it.

Apology accepted, thank you - but I don't take seriously anything thrown at me on the internet and very little in real life either - I know myself, warts and all, and I'm happy being the person I am, and if you think I'm conceited and/or arrogant or not, on certain things I do know what I am talking about.

Politics isn't about the best for the country, it is about getting power and keeping it - they will say anything you want to hear as long as you vote for them - and not do what they promised to get your vote in the first place.

That's how it works.

Up to Johnson, things were kept within limits but the lying to and disdain of Parliament - by the Prime Minister himself no less - has changed all that and Braverman's attempt to politicise the police was even a step to far for them and why she was thrown to the wolves.

We have to face the facts that we can't have the country we might want, those Muslims are British citizens too, with the same rights and votes as we have and they have the right to protest about the killings in Gaza no matter if you our me don't like it.

You talk about standing up and saying something - but what you want simply isn't the same as what many others want - that's why we are in a democratic country - the majority get's their way.

Once you start to think and act in a way against the majority, then you start to becoming extreme in your views - you want a white privileged country - as it used to be - I do too - but I accept those days are gone - you don't.

I probably share many of your opinions, I don't like the feral youth, the self entitled who can't give a fuck about anyone else but themselves, I'm not interested in gays and transsexuals or drag show programmes, I don't like wokeism or cancel culture, I don't like bankers getting million pound bonuses for simply doing their jobs or obscenely wealthy young men wanting even more money simply because they can kick a ball better than most others. I don't like how you can steal a car, get chased by the police for a 100 miles, endanger everybody on the road and end up doing 2 hours of community service and wear a tag for a couple of days.

I don't like lots and lots of things BUT that is how the country IS now.

You can't stop the tide.

The thing is though my daughter sees nothing wrong - it's her world, she hasn't seen how it was in our time - to her everything is just normal and ordinary - she hasn't seen how things have changed - I dare say your daughter would say the same or similar because they've grown up with it - we haven't.

We didn't see the world our parents grew up in - they fought a war and wondered if it had been worth it when they saw all the hippies, free love and the pill, and black immigration, etc, etc - we just thought that was normal - and to us it was.

You can't turn back the clock to how it was, we simply have to grit our teeth and get on with it - either that or start to swap our freedom and rights in order for the Braverman's of this world to control the police for her political ends.

Once you opt out of doing things democratically, then you are left with autocracy - just like they have in Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, etc, etc.

I rather put up with the entitled and all the transsexual bollocks than fear that the police are after me because I've spoken out of turn about the government.

Wouldn't you?

Sometimes its just better to have a chuckle.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12744543/QUENTIN-LETTS-Camerons-ripely-pursed-lips-betrayed-velvety-pleasure-Harris-hawk-just-gobbled-unexpectedly-plump-dormouse.html

Sluffy wrote:

Apology accepted, thank you - but I don't take seriously anything thrown at me on the internet and very little in real life either - I know myself, warts and all, and I'm happy being the person I am, and if you think I'm conceited and/or arrogant or not, on certain things I do know what I am talking about.

Politics isn't about the best for the country, it is about getting power and keeping it - they will say anything you want to hear as long as you vote for them - and not do what they promised to get your vote in the first place.

That's how it works.

Up to Johnson, things were kept within limits but the lying to and disdain of Parliament - by the Prime Minister himself no less - has changed all that and Braverman's attempt to politicise the police was even a step to far for them and why she was thrown to the wolves.

We have to face the facts that we can't have the country we might want, those Muslims are British citizens too, with the same rights and votes as we have and they have the right to protest about the killings in Gaza no matter if you our me don't like it.

You talk about standing up and saying something - but what you want simply isn't the same as what many others want - that's why we are in a democratic country - the majority get's their way.

Once you start to think and act in a way against the majority, then you start to becoming extreme in your views - you want a white privileged country - as it used to be - I do too - but I accept those days are gone - you don't.

I probably share many of your opinions, I don't like the feral youth, the self entitled  who can't give a fuck about anyone else but themselves, I'm not interested in gays and transsexuals or drag show programmes, I don't like wokeism or cancel culture, I don't like bankers getting million pound bonuses for simply doing their jobs or obscenely wealthy young men wanting even more money simply because they can kick a ball better than most others.  I don't like how you can steal a car, get chased by the police for a 100 miles, endanger everybody on the road and end up doing 2 hours of community service and wear a tag for a couple of days.

I don't like lots and lots of things BUT that is how the country IS now.

You can't stop the tide.

The thing is though my daughter sees nothing wrong - it's her world, she hasn't seen how it was in our time - to her everything is just normal and ordinary - she hasn't seen how things have changed - I dare say your daughter would say the same or similar because they've grown up with it - we haven't.

We didn't see the world our parents grew up in - they fought a war and wondered if it had been worth it when they saw all the hippies, free love and the pill, and black immigration, etc, etc - we just thought that was normal - and to us it was.

You can't turn back the clock to how it was, we simply have to grit our teeth and get on with it - either that or start to swap our freedom and rights in order for the Braverman's of this world to control the police for her political ends.

Once you opt out of doing things democratically, then you are left with autocracy - just like they have in Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, etc, etc.

I rather put up with the entitled and all the transsexual bollocks than fear that the police are after me because I've spoken out of turn about the government.

Wouldn't you?

Sluffy, first of all Braverman was actually trying to de-politicise the police, requesting they treat everyone the same which clearly you missed, not politicise them as you claim. I totally accept that in a democratic society everyone has the right to voice an opinion including to point out and protest at the goings on in Gaza, but not at the expense of the Jewish community, calling for their extermination and Jihad is unacceptable yet that’s what we saw without any intervention from the police.For goodness sake man this is the UK not the Middle East.

There have to be limits and they must be clearly identified and where necessary enforced by the police, that’s what they’re there for. Several surveys have overwhelmingly indicated that Braverman was right to question their actions so maybe you missed out on that fact you claim to be so up on?  

As long as people continue to turn a blind eye to all the points you raise, the give them an inch and they’ll take a mile quote will exist. Of course time moves on and we must accept that but unless we are to be subsumed by immigrants and especially Muslim ones, the whole culture, religion, acceptance and everything else that makes this country so great will be destroyed. We know multiculturalism doesn’t work, Islam is not now and never was compatible with Christianity, or any other religion come to that. Surely it’s only right that people understand that and want to prevent it? Never in our history have we been so endangered and that Sluffy is a fact even you can’t ignore.

Whitesince63 wrote:Sluffy, first of all Braverman was actually trying to de-politicise the police, requesting they treat everyone the same which clearly you missed, not politicise them as you claim. I totally accept that in a democratic society everyone has the right to voice an opinion including to point out and protest at the goings on in Gaza, but not at the expense of the Jewish community, calling for their extermination and Jihad is unacceptable yet that’s what we saw without any intervention from the police.  For goodness sake man this is the UK not the Middle East.

There have to be limits and they must be clearly identified and where necessary enforced by the police, that’s what they’re there for. Several surveys have overwhelmingly indicated that Braverman was right to question their actions so maybe you missed out on that fact you claim to be so up on?  

As long as people continue to turn a blind eye to all the points you raise, the give them an inch and they’ll take a mile quote will exist. Of course time moves on and we must accept that but unless we are to be subsumed by immigrants and especially Muslim ones, the whole culture, religion, acceptance and everything else that makes this country so great will be destroyed. We know multiculturalism doesn’t work, Islam is not now and never was compatible with Christianity, or any other religion come to that. Surely it’s only right that people understand that and want to prevent it? Never in our history have we been so endangered and that Sluffy is a fact even you can’t ignore.

You must live in a parallel world to me 63.

Of course Braverman was politicising the police - they had followed the law on how they approved the route march and took into account the previous history of the same sorts of marches before.

Braverman wanted them to ignore the law and do what SHE wanted instead - don't you even understand that???

Don't you understand that was the reason why she had to be sacked.

Don't you understand that is why the likes of big hitters like Jeremy Hunt, Grant Shapps wouldn't supporter in public and only the loonies like Jacob Rees-Mogg did support her???

One of her reasons was that she feared attacks on the Cenotaph, this is what she said on the 4th November...

Cenotaph should be put into jail, says Braverman
The Home Secretary said elements of pro-Palestine demonstrations were turning into ‘hate marches’.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/suella-braverman-conservative-hamas-home-secretary-cenotaph-b1118221.html

...the thing is though is that the Cenotaph was nowhere near the route of the march...!!!



...that's why there were fears that SHE actually was encouraging/inciting the far right nut jobs counter protestors to attack it in order to reflect blame on the Pro-Palestine protesters.

Which they duly did!!!

Suella Braverman accused of fuelling far-right violence near Cenotaph
Police arrest scores of people amid skirmishes with rightwingers in London moments before Armistice Day silence
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/nov/11/suella-braverman-accused-of-fuelling-far-right-violence-near-cenotaph

You clearly don't understand how these things work.

The following was why the police did what they did in the first place - they were right to do so as the march turned out relatively peaceful in the end despite the attendance of extreme nutjobs from both the right and the left.

AND if Braverman hadn't chirped and made a big noise over the cenotaph, there wouldn't have been the far right nutjobs there at all!

Why would they be - as they would have been trying to get close to the actual march miles away!

You really are like the Straw Man at times, pleasant, amenable, good company but clearly no understanding at all with what is going on around you...

Why Suella Braverman can't stop Palestinian protests

By Dominic Casciani
Home and legal correspondent
@BBCDomC

As things stand, there is going to be a potentially huge pro-Palestinian march in London, on Armistice Day - and there is nothing Home Secretary Suella Braverman alone can do to stop it.

The reason for that is simple: the law does not tell the Met Police commissioner Sir Mark Rowley to take into account the views of ministers. It tells him to assess the risks to the public - and make a plan accordingly.

Since the Gaza conflict began, the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign (PSC) has organised three national protests in London on successive Saturdays that have grown larger week-on-week.

It has negotiated with the police over the route and duration of each and abided by conditions.

The police have a delicate balancing act to perform in protecting free speech and assembly - and also protecting the rights of others not to be intimidated.

The Met says where protesters have supported terrorist groups, broken racial-hatred laws, or committed other offences, they have made arrests. So far, more than 200 have been arrested - each serious in its own terms, including some allegations of support for Hamas - which is a proscribed terrorist group in the UK.

But put those numbers in the wider context of public order policing in London.

On Monday alone, police arrested 219 Just Stop Oil demonstrators who tried to stop traffic near Parliament. The Extinction Rebellion "sit-ins" of more than two years ago saw officers cart away a staggering 4,118 demonstrators.

Opponents of the PSC say marchers are chanting deeply antisemitic slogans and providing a cover for extremists. But while individuals can be arrested for hate crime offences, the legal test for banning an event is more complex.

Critical legal tests
The Public Order Act 1986 gives Sir Mark Rowley and other police chiefs the power to apply conditions to marches where they reasonably believe there could be:

Serious public disorder
Serious damage to property
Serious disruption to the lives of the community
Intimidation of others

The PSC has agreed to conditions under that law. Its supporters say they will gather an hour after the two-minute silence on Armistice Day and more than a mile away from the Cenotaph. Their march, ending with a rally at the US Embassy, is planned to go nowhere near the memorial.

Rishi Sunak has described holding a march on Armistice Day as disrespectful and a risk to the Cenotaph or other memorials.

But given the PSC has repeatedly abided by conditions imposed on its previous marches, the only conclusion the police can reach - unless they get intelligence to the contrary - is that a risk to the Cenotaph won't come from protesters on the march route.

And that's why the force has concluded there is no legal justification to ask the home secretary to ban the march.

That power can only be used if a police chief believes they cannot prevent "serious public disorder". That basically means violent crowds potentially bent on running amok. The police haven't seen that in previous weeks.

So if police commanders asked the home secretary to ban the march, the organisers could go to court - and judges would need to see evidence and intelligence proving the serious risk.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67367617

Sluffy, once again I’m not reading all that, can’t you ever just reply concisely. I glean from the start we disagree, surprise, surprise, so let’s just leave it there.

Whitesince63 wrote:Sluffy, once again I’m not reading all that, can’t you ever just reply concisely. I glean from the start we disagree, surprise, surprise, so let’s just leave it there.

How do you ever learn anything if you don't have the attention span to read a few paragraphs?

What I've posted above to basically TWO small paragraphs, two links to background sources, a map and an analytical analysis in full outlining the legal position of the police.

It's not like I've gone ranting on or anything, I've simply laid out the facts which you clearly do not want to hear because they don't fit with what you want to believe.

Professor Tim has his say.

Sluffy wrote:

Whitesince63 wrote:Sluffy, once again I’m not reading all that, can’t you ever just reply concisely. I glean from the start we disagree, surprise, surprise, so let’s just leave it there.

How do you ever learn anything if you don't have the attention span to read a few paragraphs?

What I've posted above to basically TWO small paragraphs, two links to background sources, a map and an analytical analysis in full outlining the legal position of the police.

It's not like I've gone ranting on or anything, I've simply laid out the facts which you clearly do not want to hear because they don't fit with what you want to believe.

To be fair to 63, I nearly fell into a coma when I started to read that.

karlypants wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Whitesince63 wrote:Sluffy, once again I’m not reading all that, can’t you ever just reply concisely. I glean from the start we disagree, surprise, surprise, so let’s just leave it there.

How do you ever learn anything if you don't have the attention span to read a few paragraphs?

What I've posted above to basically TWO small paragraphs, two links to background sources, a map and an analytical analysis in full outlining the legal position of the police.

It's not like I've gone ranting on or anything, I've simply laid out the facts which you clearly do not want to hear because they don't fit with what you want to believe.

To be fair to 63, I nearly fell into a coma when I started to read that.

Don't know why you did, as I say if you look at it again, there is 63's quote, then I write about 100 words, then a link to a source, then a map, about another 20 words, another link to a source, then about another 100 words, then an analytical article in full outlining the law the police have to work to.

So about two paragraphs in total from me and everything else are the facts and figures confirming what I said.

You probably read longer bedtime stories to your son than what I actually wrote above - it's all the attached facts that make it seem a lot - but you need the facts to understand why the police had to do what they did and why what Braverman did was unacceptable and why she was sacked.

Government's Rwanda plan ruled unlawful
The British government's plan to deport migrants to Rwanda is unlawful, the Supreme Court has ruled.


A serious blow to the government
As he delivered his judgment Lord Reed, the president of the Supreme Court, stressed that their decision was based entirely on "the evidence and the legal principles".

The court, he said, "is not concerned with the political debate" around the policy.

But the political implications of what the court has done are massive and unavoidable.

This is a serious blow to the government. Its flagship policy to "stop the boats" - one of Rishi Sunak's five pledges for 2023 - has been struck down.

And the prime minister will now have to make a rapid decision about how to proceed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-67418363

Sluffy wrote:Government's Rwanda plan ruled unlawful
The British government's plan to deport migrants to Rwanda is unlawful, the Supreme Court has ruled.


A serious blow to the government
As he delivered his judgment Lord Reed, the president of the Supreme Court, stressed that their decision was based entirely on "the evidence and the legal principles".

The court, he said, "is not concerned with the political debate" around the policy.

But the political implications of what the court has done are massive and unavoidable.

This is a serious blow to the government. Its flagship policy to "stop the boats" - one of Rishi Sunak's five pledges for 2023 - has been struck down.

And the prime minister will now have to make a rapid decision about how to proceed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-67418363

Have they not said how much money has been wasted on this farce?

Sunak being threatened with a leadership contest.

karlypants wrote:

Have they not said how much money has been wasted on this farce?

An eye watering £140 million!