Keir starmer

Starmer simply argued the law, that the U.K. government had signed up to.

Germanshepherdsmum

It is controlled immigration Casdon, people coming here with permission because they have the proven financial ability to support themselves. I complain bitterly about uncontrolled immigration, those arriving on boats whose identity and backstory may be wholly unknown and who are supported by each and every one of us who pays taxes.

I do know the difference! As I said, if you’re comfortable with the UK accepting that number of legal migrants I won’t argue with you, although I think you’re misguided.

Doodledog

*Whatever, it is partly true*

That sums up ‘Boris’ and his premiership, really, and that of the Tory party at this time. It’s one of the reasons why Bevsec’s ‘friend’ is likely to be disappointed when the election results are announced. People are fed up with the lack of integrity that that attitude shows, and thank goodness for that.

Hold on, the post was about Starmer , not Boris. Why not start a post about him. You can't deflect from what Starmer achieve here, simply by saying non of it wasn't true.
Some of it was.

It is controlled immigration Casdon, people coming here with permission because they have the proven financial ability to support themselves. I complain bitterly about uncontrolled immigration, those arriving on boats whose identity and backstory may be wholly unknown and who are supported by each and every one of us who pays taxes.

Germanshepherdsmum

Chestnut

Whatever, it is partly true and that's bad enough. I am absolutely dreading a Labour government because under Starmer immigration will go through the roof. At least the Tories are making some attempt to control it (albeit weak and feeble) but soon there will be no control.

I agree Chestnut. It is not wholly untrue. The case resulted in the government being unable to refuse support for immigrants. It also reminds those who need reminding that Starmer was one of the human rights lawyers who act for illegal immigrants, and that it isn’t in his DNA to be tough with them. If we think things are bad now, wait and see how much worse they will be under his watch.

So it’s in his DNA to care for others and not just himself. Is that really such a bad thing?

(addressed to GSM)

That is a separate point. The S/M post in the O/P gives the clear impression that Starmer brought the measures in and is libellous.

As such, it would never had been posted if a quick fact check had been done.

LizzieDrip

^Five times more often than Labour’ - so Labour are at it too^

GSM this is whataboutery. Take all the exception you like.

I didn't bring individuals into this, as I think the political threads are getting more and more divisive and life will have to go on after the election, but as I was directly challenged, I will defend my position.

As Lizziedrop points out, there are examples of whataboutery just a few posts up.

'Whatabout what KS did when he was a barrister acting for immigrant clients' is whataboutery too. To suggest that because he did his job by defending immigrants within the law of the land means that support for them 'is in his DNA' is desperate.

And to me there is no doubt that agreeing that 'Whatever, it is almost true' is acceptable is dishonest.

I rest my case.

Germanshepherdsmum

I don’t have a problem with legal migration given the requirements for proof of income for those coming to work, and proof of finances for those coming to study. Vast numbers of NHS staff and care workers come here on such visas, and universities rely heavily on the higher fees they charge to foreign students.

As long as you never complain about the country becoming too overcrowded, access to the NHS, lack of suitable housing and other infrastructure issues as the UK accepts a net population increase of over a million people every two years, I respect your position.

Believe what you like Maizie. The point is that he was instrumental in achieving a change in the law which made it impossible for the government to refuse to support immigrants. He was a human rights lawyer and he is not going to get tough on immigration.

I don’t have a problem with legal migration given the requirements for proof of income for those coming to work, and proof of finances for those coming to study. Vast numbers of NHS staff and care workers come here on such visas, and universities rely heavily on the higher fees they charge to foreign students.

Germanshepherdsmum

Of course it was the judge - but Starmer acted for the immigrants who brought the challenge to the then existing law.

He's a barrister, GSM, that's what barrister's do. Would you be happier, for example, if criminal law barristers didn't use the law to defend criminals?

I really think that you don't believe in the rule of Law, or equality under the law...

Germanshepherdsmum

Visas will be granted to those we welcome. I have no problem with controlled immigration - those who come on work or study visas. I have a significant problem with people arriving on boats without permission, often without any ID, who may or may not possess a useful skill and be able to support themselves. Remember that those granted work visas have to supply evidence of income - there is no ‘diversion’ going on.

Seriously? You’re okay with legal migration to the UK continuing at the level of last year? The total was 685,000, of whom about 40,000 entered through irregular routes (April 2023-March 2024). One could accuse you of hyperfocus if that’s what you think.

Of course it was the judge - but Starmer acted for the immigrants who brought the challenge to the then existing law.

I have a significant problem with the 10s of thousands of asylum seekers who have landed on our shores, bunged into rubbish accommodation at huge expense and forgotten

I have a significant problem with a government who is charged with controlling our borders and completely failing to do so.

I have a significant problem who has absolutely failed to carry out its sole job of processing the asylum seekers as they enter the country and return those that fail.

I have a significant problem with the government who lies about the effect that Rwanda policy will have on the asylum seekers.

I have a significant problem with the eye watering waste of taxpayers money this government has spaffed (to use that unpleasant turn of phrase) up the wall, day after day, week after week and year after year.

Germanshepherdsmum

The post was not defamatory Wyllow. It is fundamentally true - Starmer effectively prevented the government from being able to exercise the right it had to refuse support to immigrants.

I think you'll find that it was the law, as interpreted by the judge, which prevented the government, not Starmer.

Or do you not believe in the Rule of Law?

Five times more often than Labour’ - so Labour are at it too

GSM this is whataboutery. Take all the exception you like.

Wyllow, the benefits could be denied before the case in which Starmer acted for the immigrants. He was just a barrister then.

Fine. And I take exception to obvious 'mistruths' being posted on here, and the 'whatever - it's nearly true' attitude (which you endorsed) being used in mitigation. It is dishonest, and you know it.

Whataboutery is what happens on every political thread - what about the Iraq War, FGS! Yes it was awful (I marched against it) but it was over 30 years ago. If you don't think that's sounding increasingly desperate, I do.

It's not true, the benefits existed before Starmer had the position did, but the SM post clearly gives the impression he brought them in.

GSM here’s the link - you can read the figures for yourself (if you choose to):

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-government-misinformation-social-media-b2516194.html

As a Tory supporter I take exception to your accusation that I indulge in lies or whataboutery.

Wyllow3

Posters "Badmouth" politicians they disagree with just as politicians badmouth each other constantly.

However, that different from posting a written defamatory lie, which is libellous.

Lies and whataboutery are both dishonest and desperate, but that seems to be all that's left for the Tories and their supporters.

The post was not defamatory Wyllow. It is fundamentally true - Starmer effectively prevented the government from being able to exercise the right it had to refuse support to immigrants.

Visas will be granted to those we welcome. I have no problem with controlled immigration - those who come on work or study visas. I have a significant problem with people arriving on boats without permission, often without any ID, who may or may not possess a useful skill and be able to support themselves. Remember that those granted work visas have to supply evidence of income - there is no ‘diversion’ going on.