Live Streams

MONDAY
7pm Geoffrey Dunstan
9pm Available Slot

TUESDAY
7pm Available Slot
9pm Delroy Henry

WEDNESDAY
6pm Anne Marie Waters
7pm The UK Freedom Alliance
9pm Jeremy Poole

THURSDAY
7pm Sandy Smith
9pm Dave Witcher

FRIDAY
7pm Jacqui Lowry
10pm Red Pill Movie Night

SATURDAY
6:30pm Shaun Morris
9pm Davey Russell

SUNDAY
12pm Katie-Jayne Swallow
5pm Dave Simpson
7pm Alan Merritt
9pm Public Child Protection Wales

(Premium membership required)

Home Office forced to spend £36m of taxpayers’ cash fighting immigration judicial reviews last year

Advertisements

The Government has been forced to spend nearly £36 Million of taxpayers’ funds fighting judicial reviews related to immigration cases last year it has emerged.

The news comes as the Home Secretary Priti Patel prepares to champion new laws to stop “endless vexatious claims”.

According to internal figures obtained by The Telegraph, the department is also currently dealing with over 3,600 challenges to immigration cases.

Advertisements

A series of deportation flights scheduled to take place in recent months to remove migrants, including some serious convicted criminals have been impacted by last-minute legal challenges.

Challenges have also taken place with migrants who have crossed the English Channel to entire British soil illegally, with the UK recording seven times as many arrivals this year compared to the 12 months previous.

Home Secretary Priti Patel – Image: Google Images

A Whitehall source told journalists the latest figures that the taxpayer’ fronted, which include counsel fees and the legal fees paid out, “show just how crocked our asylum system is”.

They said: “There are no winners from an asylum system which leaves vulnerable people waiting for years to have a claim processed through the courts whilst taxpayer’s pick up the ever-growing bill.

“That’s why we will bring forward legislation to fix this broken system”

Lord Howard, the former Conservative leader, writes: “Of course no-one is proposing the abolition of judicial review. It clearly plays an indispensable role in upholding the rule of law. But there are legitimate questions about its proper scope.

“Who is to have the final say on the laws which govern us? Is it to be Parliament, traditional repository of sovereignty, and, at least as far as the House of Commons is concerned, democratically elected and so accountable to the people, or the judges of the Supreme Court, unelected and the product of a process which resembles a self-perpetuating oligarchy?”

xxxxxxxIMG 8168

This content was sourced from Unity News Network.

0 Comments

Get involved!

Get Connected!
Come and join the conscious community and get to know new people!

Comments

No comments yet

Upgrade to Premium Membership

For just £3 a month you can upgrade to Premium Membership. You’ll get access to our daily live streams and the archive of previous live streams. The cost of providing this social network is 100% funded by the Premium membership fees we receive.

Standard members click here to upgrade to premium membership

Show your support

The monthly cost of providing this social network is 100% funded by the community that use it. Please consider an affordable donation to show your support.

Donate

Latest Community Photos

Latest Community Media

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This