| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... 17:57 - Jun 27 with 10151 views | theloneranger |
"A total of 95 staff at a hotel which will house asylum seekers have been told they will lose their jobs.
The Stradey Park Hotel in Llanelli, Carmarthenshire, is set to house up to 241 asylum seekers.
The Home Office said the plans were necessary and it was listening to the views of the local community.
The Refugee Council has raised concerns about integrating asylum seekers in the community and whether they will get the support they need.
The 50 full-time and 45 part-time staff will stop working at the hotel on 10 July, the same day asylum seekers are due to move in.
Staff were informed during a meeting on Tuesday morning, after an email was sent via management at the hotel who then informed their colleagues.
The meeting, which lasted about half an hour, did not include any representatives on behalf of the hotel's owners, Sterling Woodrow.
The BBC was told some staff members who were not able to make the meeting joined the meeting via their phones, while others were called afterwards by colleagues.
Staff were said to be "shocked" but some also described relief "after weeks of waiting" to have questions answered about their futures."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-66033564 |  |
| Everyday above ground ... Is a good day! 😎 |
| |  |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 20:36 - Jun 29 with 1457 views | raynor94 |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 19:26 - Jun 29 by Kilkennyjack |
Absolutely played a major part.
Almost all posters on here will have had family involved.
Allied forces still speaks as a term.
God bless the Americans, Canadians, ANZAC, Indian, Polish, Caribbean, French, Dutch and many others who bravely stood together with the men and women of theses islands to defeat the Nazi forces.
Its heart breaking that again today we see war in mainland Europe.
And its impossible to see how it will all end. |
What's your opinion on this actual thread?
As you have been a big supporter of these people arriving on boats |  |
| |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 21:00 - Jun 29 with 1441 views | Kilkennyjack |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 20:36 - Jun 29 by raynor94 |
What's your opinion on this actual thread?
As you have been a big supporter of these people arriving on boats |
I see the shitehouse Rwanda plan has cost us £170m and is ‘unlawful’.
Love to hear your opinion on that.
Where is your clandestine channel threat commander man ?
Thoughts and prayers etc.
What a failure.
I am for controlled migration via formal approved routes.
Shirley even you can see that ?
I dont support people risking their lives to get here on small boats. Thats mad.
I am against right wing politicians taking advantage of these people to gain votes from the hard of thinking.
Remember all the BBC reports from Calais in 2016 just before the Brexut vote. You have been played by some posh people. Played big time. 🇬🇧 |  |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 21:26 - Jun 29 with 1425 views | Boundy |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 20:26 - Jun 29 by Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
It should be illegal to make people redundant only to directly replace them with agency workers who do exactly the same job. |
It should be , but change the job title ,tweak the role and there you go job done |  |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 21:53 - Jun 29 with 1407 views | Kilkennyjack |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 20:26 - Jun 29 by Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
It should be illegal to make people redundant only to directly replace them with agency workers who do exactly the same job. |
Spot on | |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 22:13 - Jun 29 with 1399 views | raynor94 |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 21:00 - Jun 29 by Kilkennyjack |
I see the shitehouse Rwanda plan has cost us £170m and is ‘unlawful’.
Love to hear your opinion on that.
Where is your clandestine channel threat commander man ?
Thoughts and prayers etc.
What a failure.
I am for controlled migration via formal approved routes.
Shirley even you can see that ?
I dont support people risking their lives to get here on small boats. Thats mad.
I am against right wing politicians taking advantage of these people to gain votes from the hard of thinking.
Remember all the BBC reports from Calais in 2016 just before the Brexut vote. You have been played by some posh people. Played big time. 🇬🇧 |
And the housing of illegals is costing us 6 million a day!
Passed by 2-1, today, glad to see its being taken on appeal to the Supreme Court. | |
| |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 23:09 - Jun 29 with 1375 views | Kilkennyjack |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 22:13 - Jun 29 by raynor94 |
And the housing of illegals is costing us 6 million a day!
Passed by 2-1, today, glad to see its being taken on appeal to the Supreme Court. |
Its unlawful.
Thats it.
Wasting more public money now on an appeal. Pathetic.
I thought we took back control already …. 🤣
On Question Time tonight not a single member of the audience supported Rwanda.
Not one.
I am not sure what you dont understand.
Its as unworkable as Johnson’s Brexit. | |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 23:27 - Jun 29 with 1367 views | onehunglow |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 23:09 - Jun 29 by Kilkennyjack |
Its unlawful.
Thats it.
Wasting more public money now on an appeal. Pathetic.
I thought we took back control already …. 🤣
On Question Time tonight not a single member of the audience supported Rwanda.
Not one.
I am not sure what you dont understand.
Its as unworkable as Johnson’s Brexit. |
Unlawful? They are herecunlawfully
Change it
Protest
Get on to the streets [Post edited 29 Jun 2023 23:29]
| |
| |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 23:35 - Jun 29 with 1345 views | Dr_Winston |
It's fairly mental how much of a headache the UK Govt makes of it all.
Of course we have obligations under international treaties and anyone who seeks asylum in the UK through the proper channels should have their application dealt with properly and promptly.
If however you arrive in Britain from a "safe" country your application for asylum should be rejected as a matter of course and your immediate repatriation take place. Anyone pitching up from France should be f*cked off at the first opportunity. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 23:38 - Jun 29 with 1358 views | Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 23:09 - Jun 29 by Kilkennyjack |
Its unlawful.
Thats it.
Wasting more public money now on an appeal. Pathetic.
I thought we took back control already …. 🤣
On Question Time tonight not a single member of the audience supported Rwanda.
Not one.
I am not sure what you dont understand.
Its as unworkable as Johnson’s Brexit. |
Here’s a question (I genuinely don’t know the answer):
How can it be unlawful when it has gone through parliament and has royal assent?
This Supreme Court, another one of that idiot Blair’s absolutely stupid ideas has gained a lot of power in recent years. Too much power some would say. We have a parliamentary democracy built over the course of eight centuries. For some unelected judges to be able to overturn decisions made by that body is a huge step away from that.
This isn’t America. We don’t have a presidential system with arbitrary executive orders being signed on a whim. |  |
| |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 09:23 - Jun 30 with 1286 views | controversial_jack |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 23:38 - Jun 29 by Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
Here’s a question (I genuinely don’t know the answer):
How can it be unlawful when it has gone through parliament and has royal assent?
This Supreme Court, another one of that idiot Blair’s absolutely stupid ideas has gained a lot of power in recent years. Too much power some would say. We have a parliamentary democracy built over the course of eight centuries. For some unelected judges to be able to overturn decisions made by that body is a huge step away from that.
This isn’t America. We don’t have a presidential system with arbitrary executive orders being signed on a whim. |
None of our judges are elected, they are in the US though, and often appointed by the president The judiciary must be independent and impartial
We have a parliamentary democracy, but we don't have a constitution. There is no real body that acts as such. Royal assent is just rubber stamping. A supreme court is good imo | | | |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 10:09 - Jun 30 with 1285 views | felixstowe_jack |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 09:23 - Jun 30 by controversial_jack |
None of our judges are elected, they are in the US though, and often appointed by the president The judiciary must be independent and impartial
We have a parliamentary democracy, but we don't have a constitution. There is no real body that acts as such. Royal assent is just rubber stamping. A supreme court is good imo |
A parliamentary democracy is so much better than a dictatorship run by a single madman. | |
| |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 11:59 - Jun 30 with 1244 views | controversial_jack |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 10:09 - Jun 30 by felixstowe_jack |
A parliamentary democracy is so much better than a dictatorship run by a single madman. |
Democracy is not for everyone, but it's what we have and we don't understand anything else | | | |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 12:19 - Jun 30 with 1250 views | majorraglan |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 23:38 - Jun 29 by Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
Here’s a question (I genuinely don’t know the answer):
How can it be unlawful when it has gone through parliament and has royal assent?
This Supreme Court, another one of that idiot Blair’s absolutely stupid ideas has gained a lot of power in recent years. Too much power some would say. We have a parliamentary democracy built over the course of eight centuries. For some unelected judges to be able to overturn decisions made by that body is a huge step away from that.
This isn’t America. We don’t have a presidential system with arbitrary executive orders being signed on a whim. |
Disagree with your comments about the Supreme Court - I think it’s really important to have a mechanism for holding people to account. The reason it’s being fussed is because we’ve got incompetent politicians who are trying to do things that are illegal and they don’t like being held to account.
The situation with the immigration is a farce, let’s employ more case workers, process the claims more quickly and get people who don’t have the right to after their case has been reviewed out of the country.
Unelected judges is the way forward, an independent judiciary selected by their peers as opposed to the nepotism and cronyism we’ve seen
from Boris with his honours list. It was the Supreme Court that held Boris to account for proroguing Parliament illegally. | | | |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 15:46 - Jun 30 with 1217 views | Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 12:19 - Jun 30 by majorraglan |
Disagree with your comments about the Supreme Court - I think it’s really important to have a mechanism for holding people to account. The reason it’s being fussed is because we’ve got incompetent politicians who are trying to do things that are illegal and they don’t like being held to account.
The situation with the immigration is a farce, let’s employ more case workers, process the claims more quickly and get people who don’t have the right to after their case has been reviewed out of the country.
Unelected judges is the way forward, an independent judiciary selected by their peers as opposed to the nepotism and cronyism we’ve seen
from Boris with his honours list. It was the Supreme Court that held Boris to account for proroguing Parliament illegally. |
“I think it’s really important to have a mechanism for holding people to account.”
That’s always been parliaments job though. It’s always been fairly self policing. There are debates, committees, well established procedures etc. The last four Prime ministers have ultimately been forced to resign because their position has become untenable due to their incompetence being held to account by their own party, the opposition, the media and the people of this country. Numerous ministers have been forced out. The speaker of the house resigned in the midst of bullying allegations which he was later done for. Sturgeon had to go when she found out the police would be knocking on her door.
That accountability is definitely there. More so than many countries. Trudeau in Canada for example has broken federal law twice whilst in office, got embroiled in a blackface scandal and been accused of all sorts of corruption allegations involving public money finding its way into his family members bank accounts. Yet he’s still there the golden boy who can do no wrong.
Anyway going back to the original point how can a law legally passed by parliament be judged as unlawful? Is it possibly because it conflicts with or contradicts another law already in existence or something? I genuinely don’t know the answer. | |
| |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 17:32 - Jun 30 with 1196 views | Gwyn737 |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 15:46 - Jun 30 by Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
“I think it’s really important to have a mechanism for holding people to account.”
That’s always been parliaments job though. It’s always been fairly self policing. There are debates, committees, well established procedures etc. The last four Prime ministers have ultimately been forced to resign because their position has become untenable due to their incompetence being held to account by their own party, the opposition, the media and the people of this country. Numerous ministers have been forced out. The speaker of the house resigned in the midst of bullying allegations which he was later done for. Sturgeon had to go when she found out the police would be knocking on her door.
That accountability is definitely there. More so than many countries. Trudeau in Canada for example has broken federal law twice whilst in office, got embroiled in a blackface scandal and been accused of all sorts of corruption allegations involving public money finding its way into his family members bank accounts. Yet he’s still there the golden boy who can do no wrong.
Anyway going back to the original point how can a law legally passed by parliament be judged as unlawful? Is it possibly because it conflicts with or contradicts another law already in existence or something? I genuinely don’t know the answer. |
I don’t actually know but I assume it’s when it’s contrary to international law that we’re signed up to. Also parliament is made up of two chambers with the lords providing checks and balances.
It has been an excellent system but has been dumbed down by daft appointments across the political spectrum.
As has been said above, the last the we need is American style partisan judges voted in. | | | |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 18:20 - Jun 30 with 1179 views | shingle |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 23:27 - Jun 29 by onehunglow |
Unlawful? They are herecunlawfully
Change it
Protest
Get on to the streets [Post edited 29 Jun 2023 23:29]
|
Protest lol you are talking about the British public here, i think we can now place them in the same category as the Italians in world war two no fight in them whatsoever they are just prepared to accept everything thrown at them, but they are great about moaning about it on social media mind you, and anyone who travels around Europe a lot can now understand how far this country has fallen behind in public transport health services etc and the people here are as much to blame as the ones who make the decisions. | | | |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 20:09 - Jun 30 with 1134 views | Kilkennyjack |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 23:38 - Jun 29 by Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
Here’s a question (I genuinely don’t know the answer):
How can it be unlawful when it has gone through parliament and has royal assent?
This Supreme Court, another one of that idiot Blair’s absolutely stupid ideas has gained a lot of power in recent years. Too much power some would say. We have a parliamentary democracy built over the course of eight centuries. For some unelected judges to be able to overturn decisions made by that body is a huge step away from that.
This isn’t America. We don’t have a presidential system with arbitrary executive orders being signed on a whim. |
the governance of a state is traditionally divided into three branches each with separate and independent powers and responsibilities: an executive, a legislature and a judiciary. The distribution of power in this way is intended to prevent any one branch or person from being supreme and to introduce ‘checks and balances’ through which one branch may limit another. According to a strict interpretation of the separation of powers, none of the three branches may exercise the power of the other, nor should any person be a member of more than one of the branches.
Its unlawful because its ….. against the law …. 🤷â€â™‚ï¸ | |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 20:12 - Jun 30 with 1133 views | Kilkennyjack |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 18:20 - Jun 30 by shingle |
Protest lol you are talking about the British public here, i think we can now place them in the same category as the Italians in world war two no fight in them whatsoever they are just prepared to accept everything thrown at them, but they are great about moaning about it on social media mind you, and anyone who travels around Europe a lot can now understand how far this country has fallen behind in public transport health services etc and the people here are as much to blame as the ones who make the decisions. |
When Thatcher used the state to crush the miners then people took notice.
Then austerity.
Its deliberate. | |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 09:57 - Jul 1 with 1045 views | controversial_jack |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 20:12 - Jun 30 by Kilkennyjack |
When Thatcher used the state to crush the miners then people took notice.
Then austerity.
Its deliberate. |
Yes, she used the police as her personal bouncers, and the state to freeze their assets. If that wasn't fascism then I don't know what is. | | | |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 10:36 - Jul 1 with 1040 views | max936 |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 10:09 - Jun 30 by felixstowe_jack |
A parliamentary democracy is so much better than a dictatorship run by a single madman. |
What did you call Boris?
Most call him a corrupt liar and totally unfit for any position in government, as were his cabinet. |  |
| |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 15:58 - Jul 1 with 998 views | AnotherJohn |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 15:46 - Jun 30 by Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
“I think it’s really important to have a mechanism for holding people to account.”
That’s always been parliaments job though. It’s always been fairly self policing. There are debates, committees, well established procedures etc. The last four Prime ministers have ultimately been forced to resign because their position has become untenable due to their incompetence being held to account by their own party, the opposition, the media and the people of this country. Numerous ministers have been forced out. The speaker of the house resigned in the midst of bullying allegations which he was later done for. Sturgeon had to go when she found out the police would be knocking on her door.
That accountability is definitely there. More so than many countries. Trudeau in Canada for example has broken federal law twice whilst in office, got embroiled in a blackface scandal and been accused of all sorts of corruption allegations involving public money finding its way into his family members bank accounts. Yet he’s still there the golden boy who can do no wrong.
Anyway going back to the original point how can a law legally passed by parliament be judged as unlawful? Is it possibly because it conflicts with or contradicts another law already in existence or something? I genuinely don’t know the answer. |
Returning to your question, the Appeal Court majority judgment was that the proposed legislation would breach our existing treaty obligations. Specifically two of the judges concluded that the transfer of asylum seekers to Rwanda meant that some would risk being repatriated to home countries in which they would face persecution ("refoulement"), and that in opening the way for this the UK would breach Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which it is a signatory.
The fact that the High Court's view that the policy was legal was overturned by the Court of Appeal, and that this judgement might still be reversed by the Supreme Court, illustrates how legal opinions may vary, That is why it is simplistic to say that judges simply apply "the law". To the extent that treaties include a codified set of rules this is only a starting point, which is likely to then be modified as judges interpret legal texts to make case law. The Appeal Court judgement seems to be based on an estimation of whether Rwanda is a safe country whose legal processes comply with the ECHR, and so is hardly a case of straightforward application of black letter law.
The idea of the separation of powers in a nation state - the 3 divisions - seems a bit dated in an era of international treaties and transnational blocs like the EU. The UK would be able to withdraw from the ECHR, but what worries me is that it is becoming harder and harder to undo past treaty agreements because they bind countries into complicated webs of economic and political dependencies - of the kind we saw with BREXIT, the EU Acquis and the Belfast Agreement. We then see a situation where treaty law limits what national electorates can decide. I am all for accountability, but in my opinion the primary form of accountability should be that of Government to Parliament and the electorate. [Post edited 1 Jul 2023 19:37]
| | | |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 22:38 - Jul 1 with 949 views | Kilkennyjack |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 15:58 - Jul 1 by AnotherJohn |
Returning to your question, the Appeal Court majority judgment was that the proposed legislation would breach our existing treaty obligations. Specifically two of the judges concluded that the transfer of asylum seekers to Rwanda meant that some would risk being repatriated to home countries in which they would face persecution ("refoulement"), and that in opening the way for this the UK would breach Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which it is a signatory.
The fact that the High Court's view that the policy was legal was overturned by the Court of Appeal, and that this judgement might still be reversed by the Supreme Court, illustrates how legal opinions may vary, That is why it is simplistic to say that judges simply apply "the law". To the extent that treaties include a codified set of rules this is only a starting point, which is likely to then be modified as judges interpret legal texts to make case law. The Appeal Court judgement seems to be based on an estimation of whether Rwanda is a safe country whose legal processes comply with the ECHR, and so is hardly a case of straightforward application of black letter law.
The idea of the separation of powers in a nation state - the 3 divisions - seems a bit dated in an era of international treaties and transnational blocs like the EU. The UK would be able to withdraw from the ECHR, but what worries me is that it is becoming harder and harder to undo past treaty agreements because they bind countries into complicated webs of economic and political dependencies - of the kind we saw with BREXIT, the EU Acquis and the Belfast Agreement. We then see a situation where treaty law limits what national electorates can decide. I am all for accountability, but in my opinion the primary form of accountability should be that of Government to Parliament and the electorate. [Post edited 1 Jul 2023 19:37]
|
It was the government of the UK who signed up to the International agreements.
They did not just appear. | |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 02:07 - Jul 2 with 931 views | AnotherJohn |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 22:38 - Jul 1 by Kilkennyjack |
It was the government of the UK who signed up to the International agreements.
They did not just appear. |
An agreement or treaty to which the UK is/was a signatory by definition was signed up to by the UK government of the day. And as long as a treaty, such as the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, is in force supranational bodies may take actions that may be opposed by a national electorate, such as happened when the EU imposed the excessive deficit procedure (EDP) on the Republic of Ireland under Article 126 in 2009, leading to a situation where public expenditure on healthcare plummeted to one of the lowest levels of %GNI spend in the EU and the private health insurance sector cashed in.
Now it has traditionally been a principle of international law, in line with the norms of consent and self-determination, that there are legal paths via which nations are able to withdraw from treaties when national sentiments change (see: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, A54). My point was that withdrawal from treaties is becoming more difficult because of the policies of blocs such as the EU, meaning that the international courts are increasingly constraining what governments can do and what electorates can decide. In the jargon, we are seeing a process of "juridification" where law moves into the domain of politics. | | | |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 18:32 - Jul 5 with 753 views | shingle |
Carmarthenshire County Council are taking court action against the hotel owners as they only have a licence with them for running an Hotel only business and allowing migrants would mean they are trading as an Hostel and they do not have a licence to do so. | | | |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 18:37 - Jul 5 with 733 views | Whiterockin |
| Stradey Park Hotel: Ninety-five staff to be made redundant ... on 18:32 - Jul 5 by shingle |
Carmarthenshire County Council are taking court action against the hotel owners as they only have a licence with them for running an Hotel only business and allowing migrants would mean they are trading as an Hostel and they do not have a licence to do so. |
If the court action failed would those staying in the hostel have to pay tourist tax? |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
