Starmer

If his tangled family affairs are given the same scrutiny, and airtime,
that the MSM gave to Boris, the next PM could be Rayner.

She still hasn't apologized for the part she played in the ginger growlergate scandal.

Starmer is useless.

The party of tax and spend got the keys to the Treasury a year ago, spent a couple of months moaning that the Tories were spending £20bn too much.
Then decided to spend spend spend.

Above inflation pay rises to the public sector, extra spending on HS2, handouts to scroungers , more money to nhs, another above inflation pay rise, red carpets at Dover beach for those fleeing the horrors of France, building houses on green belt forage 1million a year new arrivals.

Bring on another set of tax rises in autumn.


Can’t think why Reform are looking dangerously close to Downing Street in opinion polls. Vote Labour in2024, get Farage in 2029. Labour supporters must be proud of their 1st year.

You forgot paying £Billions to Mauritians to rent something that we own

Screwing over farmers and handing cash to foreign farmers.

Giving away fishing rights to the EU for 12 years.

Allowing the IRA to sue the UK. While opening up vexatious prosecutions on our veterans.

Proxy blasphemy law.

Codifying two tier justice.

Crackers 'net zero' handouts, GB energy, a parasitical organisation that doesn't produce any energy.

These people aren't incompetent, it's deliberate.

Cider absolutely spot on.......its deliberate to ruin Uk plc as much as they can in the time they have......will be out in the wilderness for a long long time with the tories after this show of self harm.

So long as they make life much harder for Tory voters they will be happy. Pensioners and small business owners have been in their sights since the day they won the election. They know they can't do much for the benefit of Labour voters so the alternative is to destroy the lives of the rest.

@ 13.34. It is civilians generally suing the UK for atrocities committed by said veterans, the UK are trying to change the 'rules' to stop this and are breaking the law.

Dont think Farage will ever be PM , too much work for him TBH

@ 13.34. It is civilians generally suing the UK for atrocities committed by said veterans, the UK are trying to change the 'rules' to stop this and are breaking the law.


funny how all the terrorists got a bye

^ WTF is that, are you wrong with your assertion or am i right in what i'm saying?

Keep to the point. 22.10  is another thing re terrorists with both sides and Good Friday agreement if you are asking in good faith.

Read up on Sean Brown,read up on the Paras and SAS,read up on British government collusion and you will know well why the UK is attempting to break the law.

I wonder if his ‘Island of Strangers’ speech was written using ChatGPT.

Cider if you believe the provos were terrorists and I disagree but you are entitled to opinion and you think Brits were good guys.
However to say provos got a bye is factually incorrect, there is a lot of the republican movement served heavy sentences and there are plenty who never done a thing and were convicted by the Brit state, how many Brits were jailed ? None I know of. Please educate me if you know different.

Heard a classic yesterday

Checked out if it was true ....
t is true that Mr Starmer, before he was an MP and Leader of the Opposition, represented five asylum seekers as a barrister in a case against the government. However the 2003 case Mr Starmer was involved in did not enable all “illegal immigrants” to receive support.

The case challenged legislation introduced by the then-Labour government, which meant the Home Secretary could refuse support to asylum seekers who didn’t claim asylum as soon as they arrived in the country. The claimants Mr Starmer represented won the case as the judge ruled that the government couldn’t refuse support based on how soon after arrival an asylum claim was made. Asylum seekers received support from the government or local authorities for years before 2003.



......AND THAT IS PROPER WORKING FROM WITHIN !

when in fact six people seeking asylum took the government to court. Mr Starmer was a barrister representing five of the six, alongside other legal professionals.
On behalf of his clients, Mr Starmer argued that this refusal of support breached the European Convention on Human Rights. The court ruled in their favour, meaning that the government had a duty to provide accommodation and financial assistance to asylum seekers at risk of destitution, regardless of how long after arrival in the UK their claim was made.

Asylum seekers overturn government block on housing and benefits
February 19, 2003 in Adults, Asylum and refugees, Workforce
Six asylum seekers have won their legal challenge against new
government rules which denied them the right to receive housing and
benefits, writes Derren Hayes.

The group of six brought the case following the introduction
last month of the new Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act,
which banned people who make late asylum claims from receiving
government help.

At the high court on Wednesday, Mr Justice Collins ruled that
the law as it was being applied in the six cases breached the
European Convention on Human Rights. He said “insufficient
consideration” had been given to the issue, and the decisions made
in their cases “must be quashed and reconsidered, if that has not
already happened”.

The outcome could see many other similar claims being lodged
– around 150 asylum seekers have already begun legal action
on similar grounds.

The government is to appeal against the ruling and home
secretary David Blunkett said he still considered the law to apply.
The appeal is to be heard on 3 March.

Asylum seeker campaign groups welcomed the judgement, and said
immigration authorities were interpreting the act too strictly.
“Denial of support will leave many asylum seekers without a roof
over their head and without any money to feed themselves,” said
Barry Stoyle, chief executive for the Refugee Legal Centre.

Under section 55 of the act only asylum seekers making
applications at ports as soon as “reasonably practicable” are
eligible for support and accommodation from the National Asylum and
Support Service.