THE TORY WINDRUSH COVER-UP UNDER WAY.

[malcom]

How would stopping the selling off a failing newspaper which had lost 2/3s of its readers bolster democracy ?

Isn't MORE competition in the marketplace a Tory wet dream ?

How would one less publication help competition ?

How will Labour now create a free press or is it all hot air?

[Guest]

You stick to stating your opinions and I'll stick to stating mine. I want a free press which reflects your views and mine, can you say the same?

so why are you moaning about Labour not intervening in a sale of a newspaper title?

I'm casting doubt on their sincerity by showing that they've had decades to do something about a free press but did nothing. Don't be fooled by them.

What are you going on about? Do you want a free press or not? If so why are you moaning about non intervention? If not, why are you a Tory if you want Socialist responses like market interventions.

I don't object to interventions that help bolster democracy. Do you?

So you, like me support Socialist intervention. But you dislike Socialists and think their policies are bad for the UK, even though you support them. Cool

[Guest]

How would stopping the selling off a failing newspaper which had lost 2/3s of its readers bolster democracy ?

Isn't MORE competition in the marketplace a Tory wet dream ?

How would one less publication help competition ?

How will Labour now create a free press or is it all hot air?

This thread is about Windrush. Why are you trolling it?

[Cannydc]

How would stopping the selling off a failing newspaper which had lost 2/3s of its readers bolster democracy ?

Isn't MORE competition in the marketplace a Tory wet dream ?

How would one less publication help competition ?

How will Labour now create a free press or is it all hot air?

I suspect that stopping phone and e-mail hacking allied to penalising the printing of outright lies would be good starting points.

Of course, that would shut down certain tabloids, so they would need to reform....

Now, how about my questions above ?

[Rockstar]

I read a snippet about Windrush II with the Indians and Pakistanis...

They were protesting in London about it....

[Cannydc]

I read a snippet about Windrush II with the Indians and Pakistanis...

They were protesting in London about it....

Then there are the 7,000 or so students wrongly chucked out on dodgy voice recognition software evidence.

And the hundred much needed doctors denied visas after Treeza vetoed their applications.

My guess is that the list for this particular policy has a few more pages to add.

[Lady Murasaki]

I read a snippet about Windrush II with the Indians and Pakistanis...

They were protesting in London about it....

It’s beyond a joke because it’s so badly organised but...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6185724/b ... -his-life/

[Guest]

I noticed that the cowardly mungobrush refuses to defend May or the Tories.

[Rocthedog]

How would stopping the selling off a failing newspaper which had lost 2/3s of its readers bolster democracy?

Isn't MORE competition in the marketplace a Tory wet dream?

How would one less publication help competition?

How will Labour now create a free press or is it all hot air?

This thread is about Windrush. Why are you trolling it?

Question, Why were not these people given citizenship as soon as they stepped off the Windrush. Whichever voyage they came here on. Was not Labour the government then.
Just asking.

[Rocthedog]

I read a snippet about Windrush II with the Indians and Pakistanis...

They were protesting in London about it....

Then there are the 7,000 or so students wrongly chucked out on dodgy voice recognition software evidence.

And the hundred much needed doctors denied visas after Treeza vetoed their applications.

My guess is that the list for this particular policy has a few more pages to add.

Why they were asked to leave. Might it be their medical standards were not up to this countries requirement? Just asking.

[Cannydc]

I read a snippet about Windrush II with the Indians and Pakistanis...

They were protesting in London about it....

Then there are the 7,000 or so students wrongly chucked out on dodgy voice recognition software evidence.

And the hundred much needed doctors denied visas after Treeza vetoed their applications.

My guess is that the list for this particular policy has a few more pages to add.

Why they were asked to leave. Might it be their medical standards were not up to this countries requirement? Just asking.

Here's the story. They weren't medical students.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 31906.html

[Cannydc]

How would stopping the selling off a failing newspaper which had lost 2/3s of its readers bolster democracy?

Isn't MORE competition in the marketplace a Tory wet dream?

How would one less publication help competition?

How will Labour now create a free press or is it all hot air?

This thread is about Windrush. Why are you trolling it?

Question, Why were not these people given citizenship as soon as they stepped off the Windrush. Whichever voyage they came here on. Was not Labour the government then.
Just asking.

They were given the version of 'Indefinite Leave To Remain' that was around then. And they cover a period from the late 1940s up to 1973, so your question about Labour being in power' was obvious whataboutery.

[Rocthedog]

How would stopping the selling off a failing newspaper which had lost 2/3s of its readers bolster democracy?

Isn't MORE competition in the marketplace a Tory wet dream?

How would one less publication help competition?

How will Labour now create a free press or is it all hot air?

This thread is about Windrush. Why are you trolling it?

Question, Why were not these people given citizenship as soon as they stepped off the Windrush. Whichever voyage they came here on. Was not Labour the government then.
Just asking.

They were given the version of 'Indefinite Leave To Remain' that was around then. And they cover a period from the late 1940s up to 1973, so your question about Labour being in power' was obvious whataboutery.

If they do not have paperwork proving what you say, how would you know that? And yes it is about whataboutery. Labour brought them Labour should have looked after them. I would have no problem with that. And if I was Teeza I would have banged the drum back to that useless pair Abbott and Corbyn. Labour, as I see it, are to Blame not this present day government. Proper documentation handed out by Labour at the time would not have brought this situation about. It seems Coryn has better speech writers than Teeza

[Cannydc]

"If they do not have paperwork proving what you say, how would you know that? And yes it is about whataboutery. Labour brought them Labour should have looked after them. I would have no problem with that. And if I was Teeza I would have banged the drum back to that useless pair Abbott and Corbyn. Labour, as I see it, are to Blame not this present day government. Proper documentation handed out by Labour at the time would not have brought this situation about. It seems Coryn has better speech writers than Teeza"


I know that because it is well documented, and fully admitted by Treeza and Ambuh.

Labour didn't 'bring them', they came during Labour and Tory governments over a period of 25 years.

Broadly speaking, nationals of the United Kingdom, the Dominions, and the various British colonies had always shared a common citizenship status of "British subject".

However, in 1946 the Canadian parliament passed the Canadian Citizenship Act, which established a separate Canadian citizenship. In response, a Commonwealth conference met in London in 1947, where it was agreed that each of the Commonwealth member states would be free to legislate for its own citizenship, while still retaining elements of a common Commonwealth citizenship. The resulting legislation passed by the United Kingdom for itself and its colonies was the British Nationality Act 1948.

Under the Act of 1948 British-born and colonial-born people were, in legal terms, one and the same. Anyone born in Britain or in a British colonial territory became a ‘Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies’ (CUKC or ‘British citizen’). All Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies were also British subjects.

The Act recognised Citizens of Independent Commonwealth Countries (CICC or ‘Commonwealth citizens’) as British subjects too, and afforded them the same rights in Britain as Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

So, from 1 January 1949, whether a person was born in Britain, in a British colony or an independent Commonwealth country he or she had the same legal rights in Britain.

[Guest]

[
How will Labour now create a free press or is it all hot air?

This thread is about Windrush. Why are you trolling it?

Question, Why were not these people given citizenship as soon as they stepped off the Windrush. Whichever voyage they came here on. Was not Labour the government then.
Just asking.

They were given the version of 'Indefinite Leave To Remain' that was around then. And they cover a period from the late 1940s up to 1973, so your question about Labour being in power' was obvious whataboutery.

If they do not have paperwork proving what you say, how would you know that? And yes it is about whataboutery. Labour brought them Labour should have looked after them. I would have no problem with that. And if I was Teeza I would have banged the drum back to that useless pair Abbott and Corbyn. Labour, as I see it, are to Blame not this present day government. Proper documentation handed out by Labour at the time would not have brought this situation about. It seems Coryn has better speech writers than Teeza

Churchill went to the West Indies. Was Churchill Labour?