35% of asylum seekers are gay.. or not

Ironically this kind of advice would be the norm in America where lawyers literally coach the story into their clients.
And that doesn’t happen in the uk…..

People have been crying Gay for years to stay.
 
This is how fecked up this whole migrant thing is.

On the telly box the other night was a Scottish leader debate for our May elections. On the one hand some of them (a minority) mentioned the 1000's of economically inactive people in Scotland. A quick Google tells me it's approx. 800k. Fine, many of them are not able to work. However the ONS estimates there are approx. 139k of those 800k that want to work.

On the other hand, we have the others saying we need the migrants coming in to fill vacancies.

So we have 139k people wanting to work, but we need migrants?!?

To quote the source 'The Scottish Government urgently needs to reboot its strategy to help people who are economically inactive – yet wanting to work – find employment.'

 
They cannot suborn perjury unless they want to keep their client company in jail.
It would be near impossible to be a lawyer and not work out that a good proportion of your clients are lying or guilty or deceitful.
They cannot suborn perjury unless they want to keep their client company in jail.
Noone said suborn, but they intensively prepare their witnesses which inevitably influences testimony.
 
It would be near impossible to be a lawyer and not work out that a good proportion of your clients are lying or guilty or deceitful.

Noone said suborn, but they intensively prepare their witnesses which inevitably influences testimony.
why would you risk it?
 
There's also a massive contradiction between the lefties bringing in vast numbers of workers, creating a huge supply of labour, then complain that wages aren't high enough.

There again, lefties don't understand the basics of economics, so the concept of supply vs demand is probably above their level. They require a lack of understanding to BE a lefty, otherwise they'd realise that the entire concept is so fundamentally flawed at the most basic level.
 
why would you risk it?
In the States? because of the investment in no win no fee. It was interesting that the woman who got damages from Mr Mountbaten Winsor suddenly withdrew her case when another defendant made it clear he was going to fight on. A try on in both cases driven by greedy lawyers and their finders.
 
We don't actually. It all goes onto the vast heap of national debt, and it may eventually be paid by your grandkids' grandkids or never at all, we'll just keep borrowing more to pay the interest on it, we'll probably all need to donate a kidney each to someone in China when we become their destitute slaves.
 
It's even worse here, where there's no fee or risk at all, because the government pays their legal fees to sue the government.

It's all snouts in the trough for Starmer's mates though.
How else would they afford it?
 
We don't actually. It all goes onto the vast heap of national debt, and it may eventually be paid by your grandkids' grandkids or never at all, we'll just keep borrowing more to pay the interest on it, we'll probably all need to donate a kidney each to someone in China when we become their destitute slaves.
Get your point, however my underlying point is government pay for stuff using our money. We pay, regardless of the actual generation.

During a recent leaders debate up here, the 'free' stuff we get (prescriptions etc) was being discussed. It took someone in the audience to say 'these things aren't free, they are paid for by the taxpayer'.

Government need to remember, it's OUR money they're spending, not theirs.
 
Back
Top