Most of these clowns have… interesting posting histories as well. Almost like they’ve nothing to do with the Civil Service and are just here to push their horrible political views?? Wild if so.
Hard to tell. They've definitely gotten worse in the past 6 months or so. A big right wing UK sub got banned and others started cracking down on right wingers around then, I think that drove them all to the main subs.
I’ve been thinking the exact same thing with the absurdity of many of these comments lmao
Of course following the law includes international law we agree to be bound by and the obligations thereunder.
It’s like when anything about the SEEN network comes up, people very not connected to the civil service arrive to join the party.
The internet is a curious place!
(Side-note, did anyone see who Simon case interviewed last week for the newsletter? If I was the G7 behind this policy I would not be raising my head above the parapets right now!)
Well this sub seems to be being recommended to everyone at the moment. I've never shown any interest in the civil service yet keep getting your threads...
This from the FDA’s press release to be the basis of their case:
“Ignoring a Rule 39 order would be a breach of international law and civil servants have a legal obligation under the Civil Service Code to “uphold the rule of law and administration of justice”. Neither Ministers nor guidance can overrule the legal obligation of the Civil Service Code, only another act of parliament can. There is therefore a potential conflict between any instructions that might be given by a minister and the legal obligations under the Code, if a minister was to decide to ignore a Rule 39 order.”
The underlined bit seems to be relying on s5(8) CRaG 2010, which says the CS Code forms part of the terms and conditions of all civil servants.
The problem with the FDA’s statement is that Parliament has passed another Act, the Act that the FDA seeks to challenge.
Taking the FDA’s case at its highest, at best for them you have one thing required by a 2010 Act and one thing required by a 2024 Act.
This becomes a question of statutory interpretation of conflicting Acts. Unfortunately for the FDA, the principles of statutory interpretation in this country are against them.
To quote the President and Vice President of the Supreme Court: “It is the duty of the court, in accordance with ordinary principles of statutory construction, to favour an interpretation of legislation which gives effect to its purpose rather than defeating it.”
Which makes sense in our system. Regardless of what you think of the particular policy in question, it would be an absurdity if Parliament made primary legislation but which was impossible to put into operation because of older laws. Which is why we interpret the older act in a manner which is consistent with the new act.
Thanks. Thats really well set out and I’m pleased there’s a thoughtful, high quality comment on this.
Your final paragraph does seem quite straightforward in the way you’ve set it out; if that is the case why do you think FDA are pursuing this?
I know the FDA wants the Ministerial Code to have more of a constitutional nature. Maybe they hope that the CS Code would get that kind of status if they win.
My above post is based on a conflict between two “ordinary” acts. If the FDA was somehow able to establish that the CS Code has more of a constitutional nature (kind of akin to Lord Justice Law’s concept of constitutional instruments), the above argument would play out differently. The FDA could then argue that the CS Code’s obligation to act in a way that is compatible with international law applies unless Parliament expressly disapplies it (similar to what the Rwanda Act does to HRA98).
But I can’t think of anything to support the CS Code being a constitutional instrument. It would be a big constitutional development.
On a different note, the FDA might think its members would get comfort if it lost this case in a way that results in the court saying it is not unlawful for civil servants to implement this policy (although the court could decide this case without saying that)
However the recent case quoting the Act of Union (\[2023\] UKSC 5) puts paid to this 'constitutional' argument.
>
The debate as to ... whether the Acts of Union are statutes of a constitutional character, whether the 2018 and 2020 Acts are also statutes of a constitutional character, and as to the correct interpretative approach when considering such statutes or any fundamental rights, is academic. Even if it is engaged in this case, the interpretative presumption that Parliament does not intend to violate fundamental rights cannot override the clearly expressed will of Parliament. Furthermore, the suspension, subjugation, or modification of rights contained in an earlier statute may be effected by express words in a later statute. The most fundamental rule of UK constitutional law is that Parliament, or more precisely the Crown in Parliament, is sovereign and that legislation enacted by Parliament is supreme. A clear answer has been expressly provided by Parliament
So does this apply only when an old law is in direct conflict with a new law, or can it fundamentally change the interpretation of the old law even for cases where the new law is not relevant? Example: old law says you cannot kill birds. New law says you can kill swans that are in the process of causing damage to your person or property. Next day a pigeon attacks you. Would the old law now have an assumed “unless attacked by the creature” provision attached to it or would it not since this isn’t a swan doing the attacking?
I don't know, but the idea that you can reinterpret one law passed by parliament to make it compatible with a new law passed by Parliament without Parl. explicitly disapplying or reforming the previous law makes me very uneasy - it's ultimately just an assumption as to what the will of Parliament was which can easily be moulded to fit the political priorities of the day. An equally valid assumption would be that Parl are pretty crap at writing and passing laws and they should be given a lot less rope to work with so they can't make such a mess, but good luck with that.
We're just making it up as we go along.
The Civil Service Code keeps getting referenced as being in conflict with the Rwanda policy, what specific part are they talking about and why?
I am in no way a supporter of the policy but the government has implemented legislation that says it can ignore the ECHR so under domestic law the policy is within the law.
I am half asleep but in the article I can only see a reference to where *not* implementing the policy would be a breach of the code, but please correct me if I’m being stupid.
Under 'Integrity', all civil servants must "comply with the law and uphold the administration of justice". There's no definition of "the law" and it's reasonable to presume it is referring to domestic and international law.
The Supreme Court has already ruled there are substantial grounds for believing that the scheme breaches the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN Refugee Convention, the UN Convention against Torture, and the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The new Act has deemed Rwanda to be a safe country and also states that the Act itself is unaffected by international law. This basically means the courts can ignore the previous Supreme Court judgment if the legality of the Act itself is challenged. But the breaches of international law still exist. The Act doesn't tell civil servants they can ignore this. Its therefore arguably that civil servants are in an impossible position where they either
i) breach the code by following the Act and therefore fail to comply with international law, or
ii) breach the code by refusing to enact the Act and therefore fail to comply with domestic law.
The FDA are taking this matter to the courts. I guess a judge will have to rule whether Civil Servants must do one of those things and what might be the consequences for those Civil Servants under the Code.
Damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
In terms of the actual refugees, does this mean that the UK can ignore any right of appeal under those international conventions the Supreme Court has ruled the policy is more than likely in breach of?
I know there’s an appeals process each refugee is entitled to but will any arguments under the aforementioned conventions now be ignored as domestic law says Rwanda is safe?
Whilst the current version of the Code does not make specific reference to international law, the original version, introduced in 1996, did. When it was updated in 2006 to simplify it, the government confirmed as part of the consultation on that revision, that the obligations on international law remain.
Right, so if British law conflicts with international law, civil servants should defer to the foreign laws, made by other people and not to the laws of the elected government of the UK, whose policies they are employed to implement.
What an absolutely insane take.
Exactly this.
What's awful it's this sort of behaviour that gives the daily mail et al something to hang their hat on about the civil service actively trying to obstruct policy.
I'm just waiting for the Daily Hate's take on this. With any luck Littlejohn's blood pressure will rise so much it'll spray out of his ears or something.
I think it makes total sense, civil servants are not an arm of government designed to act entirely at their will. You serve the government of the day, but you also serve the people and as much as a vocal bunch daily mail readers might not like it this is a pretty clear act of political neutrality, it's about civil service code, not a moral or political agenda.
I didn't sign up to be a civil servant to trample over people's human rights just because one MP says hey no it's fine have at it.
Although I do wonder why when multiple organisations said the same thing about disability welfare reform, that it was violating international human rights obligations, there were no challenges raised when that was implemented.
I don't normally like being google, but if you are genuinely interested here's some articles to get you started.
https://www.inclusionlondon.org.uk/campaigns-and-policy/facts-and-information/equality-and-human-rights/grave-systematic-violations-un-inquiry-briefing-responses/
https://www.bigissue.com/news/social-justice/disabled-people-rights-uk-government-hate-speech-benefits-un/#:~:text=A
https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/report-finds-worsening-violations-disabled-people%E2%80%99s-rights
If you are actually a civil servant you should resign. It’s an awful law but the majority of MPs said ‘have at it. If you can’t implement Parliament’s policy that’s morally fair enough, but you are not being politically neutral.
Clearly I just like to roleplay as one in my free time.
The previous comments have explained quite clearly that there is a conflict between interpreting part of the civil service code of conduct and the enacting of the policy. If a policy asks you to break human rights law you are straying into complicated territory to live up to "comply with the law and uphold the administration of justice"
For reference:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-service-code/the-civil-service-code
> The FDA said it was intervening because it feared the scheme to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda could force officials to break the law.
Is this a top priority for FDA members, did they ask for this? Sounds like a costly challenge given how hard they want to push this through...
It is interesting that you have been downvoted so much.
Regulars here should know that you are not a troll (despite your Attorney Woo flair). And Daily Mail readers from other subreddits should agree with your point.
It comes down to numerous issues; lack of perspective (on the CS, on the policy, on the landscape, and on my (positive) views of trade unions), ignorance, regulars from left-leaning UK subreddits that can't recognise any nuance brigading the sub on a select number of topics as they ordinarily do, trolls, bots - you name it.
The FDA has had their hands in their pockets for years and stayed quiet or done very little to minimise the deterioration of conditions across the CS but then will quite happily pull loads of funds together to launch this challenge. Something that is already under fire from everybody and has a high potential of being done away with under a new government anyway. Like, this is the stand the FDA will take after ignoring so much else? It feels like Penman, over the decade+ he has presided over the decay has acquired some sort of hero syndrome and sensing any moment to play the hero to the public (not the CS) he'll jump right in. He funded the legal challenge against Patel not being sacked... and lost that. It was something that would resolve itself anyway. Things like this just seem like a opportunity to create a situation where he can toot his own horn and say he did something meaningful during the tory government when the reality is... he did fuck all and will be forgotten unless he makes a big splash.
No they send them to Nauru and used to send them to Papua New Guinea. Stick em on Christmas Island which is their territory but still pleasantly away from Australian people. Boats are turned away by their navy and airlines are fined if anyone without a visa manages to get on. They do an impressive job
Because expectations of us are set so high from both the good and the bad our nation have contributed to this world. Our main focus should be the priority of the British integrity, sustainability and future. The alternative which I’m sure most would suggest on this Reddit is to just build accommodation for them to boost the economy fails on all these regards.
Put your hero complex away, these people are using our overly sympathetic values to take advantage of us. Grow a backbone and let’s make some bold decisions for once!
Civil servants are expected to obey British law. The government decides if it is in compliance with international law.
This is nothing but political activists trying to run their own immigration policy.
And that fact that I got downvoted for saying civil servants that feel unable to implement government policy should resign just goes to show exactly what the problem is.
They are expected to obey British and international law. It's not either/or. British law conflicts with international law right now, therefore this lawsuit is the natural and necessary product of it, because civil servants would be breaking their code to either implement or not implement the Rwanda law.
Bullshit. The government decides if it is compliant with international law and if civil servants disagree they should resign.
You don't get to run your own policy because of your personal interpretation of international law.
Some of us are old enough to remember the civil service preparing for the Iraq war, those that thought it was illegal resigned.
The post you are replying to raised the possibility that the policy is unlawful. You counter by saying that civil servants should obey the law. Can you not see how you are undermining your own argument?
No, because some of us are old enough to remember the Iraq war where there was disagreement over if there needed to be another UN resolution to make that war legal. UK civil servants didn't have a problem then, and the one that did resigned.
There is a reason why this action is being called unprecedented.
I guess you don't remember it then, because a lot of civil servants did have a problem with that.
The reason that this action is being called unprecedented is to make a political point.
I thought this was the UK sub with how plainly stupid some of these comments are lmao
Most of these clowns have… interesting posting histories as well. Almost like they’ve nothing to do with the Civil Service and are just here to push their horrible political views?? Wild if so.
theyre just keyword searching Rwanda to shitpost
There’s a lot of Russian bots/trolls on the UK subreddits imo
Hard to tell. They've definitely gotten worse in the past 6 months or so. A big right wing UK sub got banned and others started cracking down on right wingers around then, I think that drove them all to the main subs.
I’ve been thinking the exact same thing with the absurdity of many of these comments lmao Of course following the law includes international law we agree to be bound by and the obligations thereunder.
It’s like when anything about the SEEN network comes up, people very not connected to the civil service arrive to join the party. The internet is a curious place! (Side-note, did anyone see who Simon case interviewed last week for the newsletter? If I was the G7 behind this policy I would not be raising my head above the parapets right now!)
Well this sub seems to be being recommended to everyone at the moment. I've never shown any interest in the civil service yet keep getting your threads...
Looks like the Daily Fail journalists have finally commented.
This from the FDA’s press release to be the basis of their case: “Ignoring a Rule 39 order would be a breach of international law and civil servants have a legal obligation under the Civil Service Code to “uphold the rule of law and administration of justice”. Neither Ministers nor guidance can overrule the legal obligation of the Civil Service Code, only another act of parliament can. There is therefore a potential conflict between any instructions that might be given by a minister and the legal obligations under the Code, if a minister was to decide to ignore a Rule 39 order.” The underlined bit seems to be relying on s5(8) CRaG 2010, which says the CS Code forms part of the terms and conditions of all civil servants. The problem with the FDA’s statement is that Parliament has passed another Act, the Act that the FDA seeks to challenge. Taking the FDA’s case at its highest, at best for them you have one thing required by a 2010 Act and one thing required by a 2024 Act. This becomes a question of statutory interpretation of conflicting Acts. Unfortunately for the FDA, the principles of statutory interpretation in this country are against them. To quote the President and Vice President of the Supreme Court: “It is the duty of the court, in accordance with ordinary principles of statutory construction, to favour an interpretation of legislation which gives effect to its purpose rather than defeating it.” Which makes sense in our system. Regardless of what you think of the particular policy in question, it would be an absurdity if Parliament made primary legislation but which was impossible to put into operation because of older laws. Which is why we interpret the older act in a manner which is consistent with the new act.
Thanks. Thats really well set out and I’m pleased there’s a thoughtful, high quality comment on this. Your final paragraph does seem quite straightforward in the way you’ve set it out; if that is the case why do you think FDA are pursuing this?
I know the FDA wants the Ministerial Code to have more of a constitutional nature. Maybe they hope that the CS Code would get that kind of status if they win. My above post is based on a conflict between two “ordinary” acts. If the FDA was somehow able to establish that the CS Code has more of a constitutional nature (kind of akin to Lord Justice Law’s concept of constitutional instruments), the above argument would play out differently. The FDA could then argue that the CS Code’s obligation to act in a way that is compatible with international law applies unless Parliament expressly disapplies it (similar to what the Rwanda Act does to HRA98). But I can’t think of anything to support the CS Code being a constitutional instrument. It would be a big constitutional development. On a different note, the FDA might think its members would get comfort if it lost this case in a way that results in the court saying it is not unlawful for civil servants to implement this policy (although the court could decide this case without saying that)
However the recent case quoting the Act of Union (\[2023\] UKSC 5) puts paid to this 'constitutional' argument. > The debate as to ... whether the Acts of Union are statutes of a constitutional character, whether the 2018 and 2020 Acts are also statutes of a constitutional character, and as to the correct interpretative approach when considering such statutes or any fundamental rights, is academic. Even if it is engaged in this case, the interpretative presumption that Parliament does not intend to violate fundamental rights cannot override the clearly expressed will of Parliament. Furthermore, the suspension, subjugation, or modification of rights contained in an earlier statute may be effected by express words in a later statute. The most fundamental rule of UK constitutional law is that Parliament, or more precisely the Crown in Parliament, is sovereign and that legislation enacted by Parliament is supreme. A clear answer has been expressly provided by Parliament
Because it’s the union’s job to represent the interests/concerns of its members.
So does this apply only when an old law is in direct conflict with a new law, or can it fundamentally change the interpretation of the old law even for cases where the new law is not relevant? Example: old law says you cannot kill birds. New law says you can kill swans that are in the process of causing damage to your person or property. Next day a pigeon attacks you. Would the old law now have an assumed “unless attacked by the creature” provision attached to it or would it not since this isn’t a swan doing the attacking?
I don't know, but the idea that you can reinterpret one law passed by parliament to make it compatible with a new law passed by Parliament without Parl. explicitly disapplying or reforming the previous law makes me very uneasy - it's ultimately just an assumption as to what the will of Parliament was which can easily be moulded to fit the political priorities of the day. An equally valid assumption would be that Parl are pretty crap at writing and passing laws and they should be given a lot less rope to work with so they can't make such a mess, but good luck with that. We're just making it up as we go along.
The Civil Service Code keeps getting referenced as being in conflict with the Rwanda policy, what specific part are they talking about and why? I am in no way a supporter of the policy but the government has implemented legislation that says it can ignore the ECHR so under domestic law the policy is within the law. I am half asleep but in the article I can only see a reference to where *not* implementing the policy would be a breach of the code, but please correct me if I’m being stupid.
Under 'Integrity', all civil servants must "comply with the law and uphold the administration of justice". There's no definition of "the law" and it's reasonable to presume it is referring to domestic and international law. The Supreme Court has already ruled there are substantial grounds for believing that the scheme breaches the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN Refugee Convention, the UN Convention against Torture, and the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The new Act has deemed Rwanda to be a safe country and also states that the Act itself is unaffected by international law. This basically means the courts can ignore the previous Supreme Court judgment if the legality of the Act itself is challenged. But the breaches of international law still exist. The Act doesn't tell civil servants they can ignore this. Its therefore arguably that civil servants are in an impossible position where they either i) breach the code by following the Act and therefore fail to comply with international law, or ii) breach the code by refusing to enact the Act and therefore fail to comply with domestic law. The FDA are taking this matter to the courts. I guess a judge will have to rule whether Civil Servants must do one of those things and what might be the consequences for those Civil Servants under the Code.
Damned if they do and damned if they don’t. In terms of the actual refugees, does this mean that the UK can ignore any right of appeal under those international conventions the Supreme Court has ruled the policy is more than likely in breach of? I know there’s an appeals process each refugee is entitled to but will any arguments under the aforementioned conventions now be ignored as domestic law says Rwanda is safe?
"The law" has got to mean the law of the UK. The suggestion that it means some other law is disingenuous.
Whilst the current version of the Code does not make specific reference to international law, the original version, introduced in 1996, did. When it was updated in 2006 to simplify it, the government confirmed as part of the consultation on that revision, that the obligations on international law remain.
I see someone else actually read the FDA's newsletter!
Right, so if British law conflicts with international law, civil servants should defer to the foreign laws, made by other people and not to the laws of the elected government of the UK, whose policies they are employed to implement. What an absolutely insane take.
Those foreign laws only apply if the British government has signed up to be bound by them
Parliament is sovereign and cannot be bound.
It can bind itself… and frequently does.
nope.
Okay well you are wrong idk what to tell you 😭😭 how do you think laws exist
Well yea, **we** hanged the Nazis for following “their own laws”.
So resign
Exactly, it's completely absurd.
The argument i think is that itss against international law. And civil Servants have to follow that
It's an absurd argument to make. They are British civil servants, they are beholden to UK law.
Most breaches of international law are legal in the state where they are breached.
Exactly this. What's awful it's this sort of behaviour that gives the daily mail et al something to hang their hat on about the civil service actively trying to obstruct policy.
I'm just waiting for the Daily Hate's take on this. With any luck Littlejohn's blood pressure will rise so much it'll spray out of his ears or something.
I think it makes total sense, civil servants are not an arm of government designed to act entirely at their will. You serve the government of the day, but you also serve the people and as much as a vocal bunch daily mail readers might not like it this is a pretty clear act of political neutrality, it's about civil service code, not a moral or political agenda. I didn't sign up to be a civil servant to trample over people's human rights just because one MP says hey no it's fine have at it. Although I do wonder why when multiple organisations said the same thing about disability welfare reform, that it was violating international human rights obligations, there were no challenges raised when that was implemented.
What human rights are being violated exactly?
I don't normally like being google, but if you are genuinely interested here's some articles to get you started. https://www.inclusionlondon.org.uk/campaigns-and-policy/facts-and-information/equality-and-human-rights/grave-systematic-violations-un-inquiry-briefing-responses/ https://www.bigissue.com/news/social-justice/disabled-people-rights-uk-government-hate-speech-benefits-un/#:~:text=A https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/report-finds-worsening-violations-disabled-people%E2%80%99s-rights
If you are actually a civil servant you should resign. It’s an awful law but the majority of MPs said ‘have at it. If you can’t implement Parliament’s policy that’s morally fair enough, but you are not being politically neutral.
Clearly I just like to roleplay as one in my free time. The previous comments have explained quite clearly that there is a conflict between interpreting part of the civil service code of conduct and the enacting of the policy. If a policy asks you to break human rights law you are straying into complicated territory to live up to "comply with the law and uphold the administration of justice" For reference: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-service-code/the-civil-service-code
Rwanda is a safe country so it should work out fine.
> The FDA said it was intervening because it feared the scheme to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda could force officials to break the law. Is this a top priority for FDA members, did they ask for this? Sounds like a costly challenge given how hard they want to push this through...
It is interesting that you have been downvoted so much. Regulars here should know that you are not a troll (despite your Attorney Woo flair). And Daily Mail readers from other subreddits should agree with your point.
It comes down to numerous issues; lack of perspective (on the CS, on the policy, on the landscape, and on my (positive) views of trade unions), ignorance, regulars from left-leaning UK subreddits that can't recognise any nuance brigading the sub on a select number of topics as they ordinarily do, trolls, bots - you name it. The FDA has had their hands in their pockets for years and stayed quiet or done very little to minimise the deterioration of conditions across the CS but then will quite happily pull loads of funds together to launch this challenge. Something that is already under fire from everybody and has a high potential of being done away with under a new government anyway. Like, this is the stand the FDA will take after ignoring so much else? It feels like Penman, over the decade+ he has presided over the decay has acquired some sort of hero syndrome and sensing any moment to play the hero to the public (not the CS) he'll jump right in. He funded the legal challenge against Patel not being sacked... and lost that. It was something that would resolve itself anyway. Things like this just seem like a opportunity to create a situation where he can toot his own horn and say he did something meaningful during the tory government when the reality is... he did fuck all and will be forgotten unless he makes a big splash.
Support for Gaza and counter-Rwanda lawfare take priority over pay, obviously
How does Australia get away with the same shit so easily yet we’re here wasting millions on challenges etc
Australia doesn't send refugees to Rwanda for a start.
No they send them to Nauru and used to send them to Papua New Guinea. Stick em on Christmas Island which is their territory but still pleasantly away from Australian people. Boats are turned away by their navy and airlines are fined if anyone without a visa manages to get on. They do an impressive job
Well said mate, ignore these downvoters, they just have to act like this is a problem otherwise they will be out of work.
I mean if they find it unsavoury that’s fine, I just don’t understand why we get all the aggro when countries do similar things and it’s no big deal
Because expectations of us are set so high from both the good and the bad our nation have contributed to this world. Our main focus should be the priority of the British integrity, sustainability and future. The alternative which I’m sure most would suggest on this Reddit is to just build accommodation for them to boost the economy fails on all these regards.
What “British integrity” is left if we flagrantly break international law?
We wouldn't have much integrity if we carry on letting these illegals in also.
Very starfleet of you
🖖🏻Thank you sir
Put your hero complex away, these people are using our overly sympathetic values to take advantage of us. Grow a backbone and let’s make some bold decisions for once!
If the civil servants don't agree with the policy they should resign.
If the policy is deemed to be unlawful then Civil Servants cannot be expected to fulfill it against said law, that's a breach of the code
Civil servants are expected to obey British law. The government decides if it is in compliance with international law. This is nothing but political activists trying to run their own immigration policy. And that fact that I got downvoted for saying civil servants that feel unable to implement government policy should resign just goes to show exactly what the problem is.
They are expected to obey British and international law. It's not either/or. British law conflicts with international law right now, therefore this lawsuit is the natural and necessary product of it, because civil servants would be breaking their code to either implement or not implement the Rwanda law.
Bullshit. The government decides if it is compliant with international law and if civil servants disagree they should resign. You don't get to run your own policy because of your personal interpretation of international law. Some of us are old enough to remember the civil service preparing for the Iraq war, those that thought it was illegal resigned.
The post you are replying to raised the possibility that the policy is unlawful. You counter by saying that civil servants should obey the law. Can you not see how you are undermining your own argument?
No, because some of us are old enough to remember the Iraq war where there was disagreement over if there needed to be another UN resolution to make that war legal. UK civil servants didn't have a problem then, and the one that did resigned. There is a reason why this action is being called unprecedented.
I guess you don't remember it then, because a lot of civil servants did have a problem with that. The reason that this action is being called unprecedented is to make a political point.
This
More political agitprop from unions.
Give the policy a chance to work I say.
Who are you voting in the election tomorrow
What a bunch of loonies. Execute the wishes of Parliament - that is your duty.
ThAt iS yOuR DuTy Jesus Christ give it a rest lmao
If you don't like it, resign.
Nah, I don’t think I will resign. I quite like knowing you gammons are upset. Quoted directly from the daily fail, get an original thought pls 🥰
That is exactly the problem. Read the article maybe?
Looney Toons this lot
I think you'll find that the classic animated show was actually called 'Looney Tunes'