I listened carefully to all of the judgement. Regardless of the politics, legally it was a no-brainer. I've never heard such a coruscating attack by an Appeal Court, not even delivered in particularly coded language, of the poverty of the legal reasoning of the initial judgement granting the injunction. If people want to find fault and sack judges, they should look at the judge who delivered the 19/8 judgement.
That judge will have public support, unlike this Court of Appeal judgement, you want riots spreading ten fold across the country, sack him. If Judge Eyre was sacked the average voter would conclude the judiciary is now run by and for the liberal left
The ONLY legitimate test for a judge is whether they correctly interpret and apply the law. If they allow "public support" to come into it, as we regrettably see in some places, it's not the rule of law but the rule of the mob.
Epping can seek to appeal to the Supreme Court, and people who disagree with the decision can seek to get the law changed through democratic means. What is not reasonably open to them is to get the law "reinterpreted" through political judges.
Incidentally, I see mention of the personal politics of both Lord Justice Bean (albeit note he was one of three appeal judges - he was simply the one who read out the judgment not the sole decision maker) and the different personal politics of the first instance judge. Judges all have personal views on political issues just as we all do... what they have to do is leave it at the door of the courtroom. I see no evidence that any of them failed to do so - the original judge would have known his decision was likely to be scrutinised by a higher court, and no doubt he honestly tried to get it right first time, but the Court of Appeal picked holes in his reasoning (as the Supreme Court might in due course pick holes in their reasoning).
Epping Forest's MP responds 'This is a dreadful decision from the Court of Appeal, accepting the Labour Government prioritising the rights of illegal migrants over the rights and safety of the local people of Epping. The Bell Hotel needs to be closed urgently and we will continue to push for the Govt to act.' https://x.com/DrNeilHudson/status/1961434632764731546
If they had a Lib Dem MP they’d be popping champagne corks 🥂
Yvette Cooper used taxpayer money - your money - to keep open a hotel housing illegal migrants.
The Government’s lawyers argued accommodating illegal migrants was in the “national interest”.
In court they said the right of illegal migrants to free hotels is more important than the rights of the British people.
Well, they are not.
The British Government should always put the interests of the British people first. Starmer’s Government has shown itself to be on the side of illegal migrants who have broken into our county.
But this is not a free pass for asylum hotels. Councils can and should still act to close hotels. If they don’t, residents will rightly ask, on whose side are they?
My team and @LawForBorders will continue to provide legal assistance to help protect communities.
There is no acceptable accommodation for illegal migrants. The Government should be prioritising Brits in need and deporting every illegal migrant, as the last Government should have done and I've argued for years.
This is the guy who boasted about opening more hotel properties to house asylum seekers, right? Just checking.
Totally different Robert Jenrick.
Hotels are a shit solution to the problem of where to put migrants to keep the rain off them. It's just that other solutions, which boil down to "can't we just build a giant catapult?" are even shitter.
By far the best solution is to let them work and sort out their own accommodation, like all other functioning adults.
That keeps them off the streets and increases GDP and tax revenue.
If they can't find work by themselves they can pick up rubbish for minimum wage. But not letting them work and housing them at huge expense is absolutely insane.
Or just process their claims quickly and fairly rather than having them sitting in hotels for months and months.
I listened carefully to all of the judgement. Regardless of the politics, legally it was a no-brainer. I've never heard such a coruscating attack by an Appeal Court, not even delivered in particularly coded language, of the poverty of the legal reasoning of the initial judgement granting the injunction. If people want to find fault and sack judges, they should look at the judge who delivered the 19/8 judgement.
Yes, Farage and Jenrick would be well advised to distance themselves from this case. Just say: 'Yes, Epping council were morally in the right but you can't expect to win in the current climate when your case has more holes than a colander. We need to up our game and we will!' That will probably garner more respect than whinging.
Jenrick was out with the protestors, Farage may follow suit, whipping them up against the 'left liberal elite' ignoring them
Remind me which Immigration Minister trumpeted the fact that HE was INCREASING the use of asylum hotels just two or three years ago.
The Atlantic reports Trump is ‘disappointed’ with Zelensky & Europe, calling their demands unrealistic. He just wants the war over ‘no matter how’, even if it means Ukraine losing land. Now he pushes for a Putin-Zelensky summit only if he’s at the table. To me, Trump is openly aligning with Putin, eroding any trust in the US government. https://x.com/olddog100ua/status/1961295032167629191
Putin won't accept any peace deal without gaining some Ukrainian territory anyway and Zelensky won't accept any loss of land beyond Crimea and maybe not even that.
The best that could be hoped for is a ceasefire on current lines of occupation
If we could help take territory off Russia, that would even up the negotiations. We’re too feart, though, because of the threat of nuclear war.
Well given that might lead to the death of most of our population in a nuclear war that is hardly surprising.
This is not the Crimean War when it might have been an option as nukes had not yet been invented
How do you think usage of nukes would help Russia, in the tactical or strategic sense?
Go on.
The answer is why Putin has not used them already.
If Putin thought he would lose the war outright he could well use at least a tactical nuke, as he knows he would lose the Presidency if he lost the war outright so would have nothing to lose
Indeed. The suggestion that Putin won't use nukes because he hasn't already used them is a logical fail. Of course, it's very unlikely he'd use them under the current circumstances, but if the time comes when Russia is losing badly, then the calculus may well change.
Wow.
Firstly, the time Putin may have used them is around April or autumn 2022. The former when it was clear that the war was going to bog down; the latter when the Ukrainians launched an offensive which retook vast tracts of conquered territory. I can only imagine how Putin must have felt as hammerblow after hammerblow fell on his fascist, imperialist regime. Now, he is more used to Russia's belittled position and repeated failures. There is no shock.
Secondly, as I've asked others, to zero reply: what would he gain from their use? Both tactical and strategic are unsuited to this war as it stands, particularly as all his WMD-trained troops and equipment are pushing up the sunflowers.
Thirdly, how much territory are *you* willing to give up because of your fear of his nukes? Because if you give him an inch because of that fear, he'll take the Baltics.
But you'll be fine, won't you?
Jesus, what a ludicrously emotive reponse to a couple of basic and pretty uncontentious facts.
Logically, there must a point at which Putin would use nuclear weapons. I'm not saying he's anywhere near or has yet been anywhere near that point, but it must exist, otherwise what is the point of a nuclear arsenal? And I'm certainly not saying that the west should back down in its support for Ukraine. Indeed, I didn't make any points about how this threat should be handled. If I had, I'd have said that the west should continue to help Ukraine to resist the Russian invasion and continue to sanction Russia, in the hope that Russia basically runs out of steam. But the fact of Russia's nuclear arsenal remains, and that needs to be borne in mind by any rational actor.
And it is not rational to suggest that he will use a tactical nuke, as it would not actually gain him anything on the battlefield, and be massively damaging internationally. And suggesting it feeds into the "We should not do anything coz NUKES!!!" rhetoric of some Russia defenders.
The Russians - in fact, all nuclear powers, have doctrines about when and where they will be used. These are well know, and although Russia has finessed them recently, not to the extent that this war could breach it. After all, they did not use them after Ukraine's incursion into Russia.
The Pentagon is restoring a portrait of Gen. Robert E. Lee, which includes a slave guiding the Confederate general’s horse in the background, to the West Point library three years after a congressionally mandated commission ordered it removed, officials said.
Epping Forest's MP responds 'This is a dreadful decision from the Court of Appeal, accepting the Labour Government prioritising the rights of illegal migrants over the rights and safety of the local people of Epping. The Bell Hotel needs to be closed urgently and we will continue to push for the Govt to act.' https://x.com/DrNeilHudson/status/1961434632764731546
If they had a Lib Dem MP they’d be popping champagne corks 🥂
I listened carefully to all of the judgement. Regardless of the politics, legally it was a no-brainer. I've never heard such a coruscating attack by an Appeal Court, not even delivered in particularly coded language, of the poverty of the legal reasoning of the initial judgement granting the injunction. If people want to find fault and sack judges, they should look at the judge who delivered the 19/8 judgement.
That judge will have public support, unlike this Court of Appeal judgement, you want riots spreading ten fold across the country, sack him. If Judge Eyre was sacked the average voter would conclude the judiciary is now run by and for the liberal left
The justice system must have public support; individual judgements need not.
The Atlantic reports Trump is ‘disappointed’ with Zelensky & Europe, calling their demands unrealistic. He just wants the war over ‘no matter how’, even if it means Ukraine losing land. Now he pushes for a Putin-Zelensky summit only if he’s at the table. To me, Trump is openly aligning with Putin, eroding any trust in the US government. https://x.com/olddog100ua/status/1961295032167629191
Putin won't accept any peace deal without gaining some Ukrainian territory anyway and Zelensky won't accept any loss of land beyond Crimea and maybe not even that.
The best that could be hoped for is a ceasefire on current lines of occupation
If we could help take territory off Russia, that would even up the negotiations. We’re too feart, though, because of the threat of nuclear war.
Well given that might lead to the death of most of our population in a nuclear war that is hardly surprising.
This is not the Crimean War when it might have been an option as nukes had not yet been invented
How do you think usage of nukes would help Russia, in the tactical or strategic sense?
Go on.
The answer is why Putin has not used them already.
If Putin thought he would lose the war outright he could well use at least a tactical nuke, as he knows he would lose the Presidency if he lost the war outright so would have nothing to lose
Indeed. The suggestion that Putin won't use nukes because he hasn't already used them is a logical fail. Of course, it's very unlikely he'd use them under the current circumstances, but if the time comes when Russia is losing badly, then the calculus may well change.
Wow.
Firstly, the time Putin may have used them is around April or autumn 2022. The former when it was clear that the war was going to bog down; the latter when the Ukrainians launched an offensive which retook vast tracts of conquered territory. I can only imagine how Putin must have felt as hammerblow after hammerblow fell on his fascist, imperialist regime. Now, he is more used to Russia's belittled position and repeated failures. There is no shock.
Secondly, as I've asked others, to zero reply: what would he gain from their use? Both tactical and strategic are unsuited to this war as it stands, particularly as all his WMD-trained troops and equipment are pushing up the sunflowers.
Thirdly, how much territory are *you* willing to give up because of your fear of his nukes? Because if you give him an inch because of that fear, he'll take the Baltics.
But you'll be fine, won't you?
Jesus, what a ludicrously emotive reponse to a couple of basic and pretty uncontentious facts.
Logically, there must a point at which Putin would use nuclear weapons. I'm not saying he's anywhere near or has yet been anywhere near that point, but it must exist, otherwise what is the point of a nuclear arsenal? And I'm certainly not saying that the west should back down in its support for Ukraine. Indeed, I didn't make any points about how this threat should be handled. If I had, I'd have said that the west should continue to help Ukraine to resist the Russian invasion and continue to sanction Russia, in the hope that Russia basically runs out of steam. But the fact of Russia's nuclear arsenal remains, and that needs to be borne in mind by any rational actor.
And it is not rational to suggest that he will use a tactical nuke, as it would not actually gain him anything on the battlefield, and be massively damaging internationally. And suggesting it feeds into the "We should not do anything coz NUKES!!!" rhetoric of some Russia defenders.
The Russians - in fact, all nuclear powers, have doctrines about when and where they will be used. These are well know, and although Russia has finessed them recently, not to the extent that this war could breach it. After all, they did not use them after Ukraine's incursion into Russia.
You both need to read "On Thermonuclear War", by Kahn.
The Pentagon is restoring a portrait of Gen. Robert E. Lee, which includes a slave guiding the Confederate general’s horse in the background, to the West Point library three years after a congressionally mandated commission ordered it removed, officials said.
Comments
Epping can seek to appeal to the Supreme Court, and people who disagree with the decision can seek to get the law changed through democratic means. What is not reasonably open to them is to get the law "reinterpreted" through political judges.
Incidentally, I see mention of the personal politics of both Lord Justice Bean (albeit note he was one of three appeal judges - he was simply the one who read out the judgment not the sole decision maker) and the different personal politics of the first instance judge. Judges all have personal views on political issues just as we all do... what they have to do is leave it at the door of the courtroom. I see no evidence that any of them failed to do so - the original judge would have known his decision was likely to be scrutinised by a higher court, and no doubt he honestly tried to get it right first time, but the Court of Appeal picked holes in his reasoning (as the Supreme Court might in due course pick holes in their reasoning).
You came here from France - so fuck off.
The Russians - in fact, all nuclear powers, have doctrines about when and where they will be used. These are well know, and although Russia has finessed them recently, not to the extent that this war could breach it. After all, they did not use them after Ukraine's incursion into Russia.
You can even find it free on line, if you Google.