Chomper Higgot

Perhaps the over £100,000,000 spent on the doomed from the start Rwanda scheme, would have been better spent on fighting criminal gangs.

Yep, the Tories have lost control of the borders.

Are we still pretending that the Rwanda scheme will have any impact on immigrants crossing the channel in small boats?

Oh look, more baseless claims and of course blaming Labour. Sorry Johnny, 14 years of Tory Government. It is without question that it is the Tories who have lost control of the UK’s borders.

A lot of unequivocal assertions there, but none backed up.

The idiocy is clear. Rwanda is, we are told, both and simultaneously, a horrible place that the mere chance of being sent there will deter ‘the boats’ and a lovely safe place to send asylum seekers. It takes a special kind of stupid to hold those two things on your head and not conclude someone is telling lies.

‘Playing into the hand of right wing groups’ and then you launch into an anti ‘left wing woke mob’. You might want to consider the posit hat the whole doomed Tory policy is not at all intended to address immigration but designed to distract the public from the ever growing litany of Tory failures. The ‘Rwanda’ scheme is an agreement to ‘exchange’ asylum seekers, with Rwanda sending asylum seekers to the UK. It’s already cost well over a hundred million of tax payers pounds and will continue to cost more millions with zero impact on immigration. It does get right wingers wound up into an ‘anti left woke mob’ rant while blinding to the Government’s failures. You’re being played and you are willingly playing your part.

Biden is simply enjoying his freedom to roam, a freedom that is, at least not for him, under threat.

The ‘story’ is FOX’s representation of events, refer OP.

Nor open his mouth and incriminate himself.

It’s not as if Austrian Nazis were ever a problem is it?!

The reason the UK are ‘putting up’ these ‘illegal immigrants’ is because the UK Government has failed to manage asylum assessment and clearance. Result, people claiming asylum are not being processed at anywhere near an acceptable rate, the Government fix for this was remove the definition of required processing time. Outcome genuine asylum seekers are not being cleared and allowed to earn their own living in the UK, while bogus asylum seekers are not being identified and removed. Nobody objects to bogus asylum seekers being removed. The question to be asked is why have the Government spent time and money on their Rwanda scheme, which they were warned would break UK and international law instead of fixing the asylum claim assessment and removal of bogus claimants?

Correct. This from the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66051292.amp Perhaps Sunak would be better advised to reinstate a functioning Asylum assessment scheme, the current one having been deliberately stripped of the budget and resources it needs to operate. Genuine asylum seekers might ten be removed from expensive detention and put to work in the economy which needs workers while those failing assessment can be removed from expensive detention and legally deported. Cost savings in the provision of detention, workers provided for the economy, illegal migrants legally removed and the UK’s obligations to international treaties complied with. Not a win win, but a win win win win.

Parliament does indeed make laws and Parliament may amend or repeal laws, but once a law is enacted it applied to all, including to Parliament and Government. Parliament nor Government may not act outwith the law.

That’s not how the law works whoever told you it is was lying to you. Parliament is subject to the laws Parliament enacts.

Parliament and the Government are subject to the laws of the land. Perhaps the Government should have listened to advice that their plans were in breach of law before pushing them through Parliament.

There you go editing my statement into a single phrase to remove context. I haven’t suggested you ‘hurling accusations, I directly quoted your stating I was hurling accusations. You can’t back up your accusations and you can’t bring yourself to apologize.

And Since you are keen on evidence. Please provide evidence of me making a claim of corporate manslaughter or indeed, as you assert, me ‘hurling accusations of corporate manslaughter’. A linked quote to my actual words will suffice.

I’m looking forward to the formal report. I’m quite certain it’s going to reference Rush’s well publicized disregard for safety and regulations. Perhaps if investigation finds no evidence of a reckless disregard for safety and regulations Rush can file suit .. oh but wait.. he can’t. https://www.insider.com/titan-submarine-ceo-complained-about-obscenely-safe-regulations-2023-6?amp

Refer news article referencing court case and safety concerns raised by guy fired for raising safety concerns. I do know a bit about the engineering and design of safety critical systems and pressure systems. Its a required area of knowledge for Professional Engineers such as myself in the particular field I work in. Evidence, refer news article posted and wreckage recovered .

You are aware that pressure testing of vessels is a process in which the vessel is subjected to a pressure that exceeds the service pressure? You are aware why it is that the engineering of pressure vessels requires design pressure to exceed service pressure. How could the victims possibly know what the risks were if they were not aware of the failure of the company to apply design codes, regulations and testing, where they aware the vessel was constructed of out of date materials, were they aware the viewing window was not rated for the service? Signing a waiver does not demonstrate any knowledge of the actual risk, nor does it indemnify the operator against the consequences of negligence and disregard for safety. https://www.penneylawyers.com/serious-injuries/do-liability-waivers-hold-up-in-court/

Report on the fact that Rush was informed of safety concerns and reference to this going to court: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12218229/amp/Ex-OceanGate-employee-repeatedly-warned-experimental-mini-sub-needed-testing.html

Dead people can’t be charged with any crime, Rush is dead.

Not like they have anything else that needs dealing with on behalf of the American nation.

Not so. They were informed three times that death was possible (it always is), they had no information on the probability of death, and the probability of death is the risk. We’re any aware of the fact the sub had been constructed with out of date materials, without the application of the correct manufacturing methods, in appropriate methods of gluing an inspection window into place that was itself not rated for the service. The employee who informed Rush of these shortfalls was fired for doing so, a matter of court record.