Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Judges decision on the Bell Hotel/Epping
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
hedda |
While I will always respect people's rights to demonstrate and question government policies and actions and laws I simply cannot understand how people are comfortable with harassing and screeching at probably fearful innocent people housed in a hotel who are more often than not , found to be genuine asylum seekers fleeing persecution.
Of course among their ranks there will be rogues just as there are among the demonstrators.
But collective blame is horrendous yet it's happened throughout history. The terrible Holocaust of course being one of the most recent as is the collective attacks upon Palestinians for the actions of Hamas.
I am really puzzled that people would also support a woman who asked for these lawful asylum seekers (under British law) to be burnt to death. |
|
Honey |
JK2006 wrote:
Essentially the Court of Appeal tells the Judge "You are stupid". Qualified of course (legal people stick together) by saying it was partly because he didn't see Home Office information - which he himself had banned! Actually even MORE stupid.
Now all the stupid locals, going for the stupid Farage type simplification, will protest - assisted by the small group of haters urging violence. If the stupid hotel is indeed closed to migrants, hopefully they will all be re-housed in different B&Bs located next to various local schools, hospitals, convents, monastries and youth clubs.
There is NO evidence that the migrant population has any more potential criminals in it than any other section of the community.
Humanity has taken THE STUPID PILL!
But they are already criminals, Mr King, from the moment they stepped on our land. (Assuming we are talking about the ones coming by boat)
Foreign nationals in general, not just migrants, have 164.5 per 100,000 arrests for sex offenses vs. 48 for British citizens but we don't know how many of these went on to be convicted, and only 26 police forces participated, so take it with a pinch of salt.  |
|
Rich |
It's those who think judges aren't politically biased that are stupid. They're human beings who have the vote like anyone else, they are only disbarred from blatant active partisan campaigning but many are doing it through judicial means, some not so discreetly. |
|
Downing Street Cat |
Absolutely. This proves that they see the way the media wind blows and then make their decisions. |
|
JK2006 |
This trivial incident asks a question. How can a senior, trained, experienced Judge make such a stupid decision? And WHY??? The answer is - because we are all, now, so influenced by public opinion, which is totally influenced by media coverage apart from the clever minority who know just how to manipulate media (make it A GREAT STORY).
So the Judge saw the vocal, high profile "locals" (often imported), assumed the populist decision, ignored clear applications that contradicted the agenda, and found accordingly. Assuming his fellow Judges (on the Court of Appeal) would back him, as they usually do.
Thank God for the few decent Judges (like the ones on Malkinson's appeal who decided YES, they would look at his "other grounds", which revealed the CCRC disaster). |
|
|
|
