DH’s attitude re riots etc upsetting and angering me

[Pinkycloud]

I feel so sick. Every time we talk about the riots, DH comes out with ‘well people are angry, etc’. He says he doesn’t condone violence, but there’s always a ‘but’. He voted Reform, I voted Lib Dem. I tell him he sounds racist in some of the comments he makes, which he vehemently denies.

He’s a loving, hardworking husband and father but… this! He is honestly a good man. I don’t know how to deal with it other than banning the subject. Has anyone else got very different political views from their spouse or partner?

I hope to hell your not my solicitor! 😂

https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/immigration/illegal-migration-act

Nope. They did work on legal aid, not the Bill. Those are different things.

Direct from their page:

Our successes
Although the bill has gone through, our work resulted in two successes:

• We persuaded the government to add legal aid provisions to the Bill. Originally, the bill did not include any mention of legal aid. Our campaigning led to lines being inserted that ensure the provision of civil legal aid services for those in receipt of a removal notice
• Following our campaigning on legal aid, the government will open a consultation into immigration legal aid fees

Now being a highly intelligent person, does that not say their work forced the govenment to make changes to the bill?

Are you hard of understanding? Legal aid provision is NOT the same as amending the provisions of the Bill or Act regarding the issue of immigration control.

"The simple solution to being unable to bring dependents into the UK would of course be to return to their home Country."

Or in simple terms: "If you don't like it sod off back to where you came from". :-(

Because this country is in such a dire state that we can't possibly have humane immigration policies, even for essential immigrant workers like doctors or nurses without whom our health service would collapse.

Do you have difficulty reading?

This again is a direct quote from the Law Society page I gave.

We persuaded the government to add legal aid provisions to the Bill. Originally, the bill did not include any mention of legal aid. Our campaigning led to lines being inserted that ensure the provision of civil legal aid services for those in receipt of a removal notice

I have tried to highlight the bit where the law society did lobby/campaign/discuss to have that provision added to the said bill.

I honestly give up. I genuinely don’t know how to make you see the difference between lobbying to add legal aid provision into a Bill as opposed to challenging the substance of a Bill. But you really are reading it incorrectly and if you look back to what you said about the part the Law Society played regarding attempts to thwart migration control, it should be blindingly obvious that what you have linked to is worlds apart from what you suggested.

Explain it then. Tell me the difference in lobbying to make changes (which the addition of legal aid was) to the bill compared to challenging the substance of the bill?

Unless what you are trying to suggest @ATenShun is that people subject to State decisions and control should not be given access to legal advice. In which case you are far more authoritarian than even your posts so far have outlined. I am libertarian leaning. Wherever a State has power of an individual’s life, I want those individuals to have the right to challenge them and hold them to account.

Are you going to show me the difference in where you claim I am incorrect? Or just change to a different tack to deflect?

Access to legal advice, no problem at all. To have that advice at the expense of the British purse no. As I said before. These compassionate lawyers/solicitors working so hard to put legal aid into the bill. If they cared that much they wouldn't charge for their services.

On the off chance you are asking in good faith I’ll try to explain.

Substance: x people can be removed in y circumstances.

Lobbying against the substance is lobbying to stop the provision that says x people can be removed or even adding to what y circumstances encompass.

Lobbying for legal aid to be added is simply to make clear that when x people are served notices to be removed, they can get legal aid to challenge the removal. It does not stop or amend the substance of the Bill. It does not even add a challenge (that inherently exists through the need for y circumstances), it simply means that the challenge will be funded. (Though in my view, it would have been fundable regardless of that provision and the LS addition didn’t actually make a difference.)

There's only one thing that I'd like to know more about in regards to the recent riots and counter-protests that did quell them - why were some anti-racist protesters waving Palestinian flags?

I really didn't think that was applicable to the UK circumstance of dealing with home-grown Nationalist violence and until I hear why the Palestinian plight (which I wholeheartedly support) relates to the problems that exist in the UK I'll be questioning the 'motives' behind the 'flag waving'.

I agree @TheHateIsNotGood

Ahhh, so you want legal advice to be available, but only to people with money? So justice only for the rich? Or just not immigrants?

I think we’re done.

Lobbying For or Against in a Bill is exactly the same thing and you know that as well as I do.

I honestly can’t tell if you are a troll arguing in bad faith or you’re just a bit dim. I really am done.

Couldn't those aforementioned solicitors supply their work for free, negating the need for these people to pay? Or how about those that feel so strongly they need legal representation run a fundraiser and get a kitty going for them?

Hopefully when some posters stop arguing/scoring points a poster or two will come along and give some answers to my question; I'm not the only one that's curious.

@ATenShun

Lobbying For or Against in a Bill is exactly the same thing and you know that as well as I do.

Huh?

Let's say the substance of the bill is: "All people called Tom should get a £100 bonus every year"

Lobbying for legal aid to be added is absolutely not the same as lobbying for the bill to change so that all people called Tom should not get a £100 bonus every year.

It's simply lobbying for people called Tom to have funded legal representation as regards to the bill.

How is that the same as lobbying for the substance of the bill to be changed?

Signing out and coming back under a different name Mood Enhancer,makes no difference to the fact that changes/amendments whatever you wish to call them are one and the same thing. It matters not what the change being made is.

@ATenShun

Signing out and coming back under a different name Mood Enhancer,makes no difference to the fact that changes/amendments whatever you wish to call them are one and the same thing. It matters not what the change being made is.

What a bizarre thing to suggest! I've been on MN for a decade or so under various usernames. None of which are Mood Enhancer. I don't think I've even ever engaged with that poster before.

So an apology would be nice.

And for future reference, if you think there is sock puppeting going on you should report it to Mumsnet HQ. They'll delete if people are doing it.

And in this case they wouldn't delete, because you're wrong 🤷🏻‍♀️ feel free to check with them though.

If two people describe the same thing to you, you not understanding it doesn't mean they are the same person...

I’m immigrant and its makes my blood boil. People angry at what?. Both my husband and I are immigrants. I’m a psychologist and my husband a high income who works in IT. We are not stealing your job. If you want high paying job go to school, educate yourself not rioting. That racist who rioting mostly uneducated people who claim benefit with Tax that i paid. I’m sorry OP i really dont have a reapect with people who agree with this riot. No matter what the reasons behind it.

This! 👏👏
I'm in no doubt that those welcoming uncontrolled immigration are also the same people moaning they can never get a doctors appointment!

Alteratively, if those people are not struggling to get a doctor's appointment, that suggests they're not being impacted by immigration directly.

well, would you agree that the small number of anti-semites on the Gaza protests don't represent most of the protesters? In the same way, the far-right element doesn't represent the people who feel ignored re levels of immigration.

There's been a similar article written in the guardian that was linked here earlier. So not just right wing propaganda.

And it wasn't me posting about immigration lawyers.