Absolutely love this – not only as a reaction to comments from that bastion of morality in the 21st century the Catholic Church (who have objectively overseen the largest systemic child abuse organisation in the history of the world) but also that Truss let’s the mask slip by prefacing “it’s moral” with “it’s legal”, because to Tories (and, they think, to *you*, because they think you’re stupid) legal and moral mean the same thing when they *patently a fundamentally do not*.
Slavery was legal. Marital rape was legal. Child abuse was legal. Colonial oppression was legal. There is less than no equivalence between law and morality.
Unless you’re a Tory, who believes the law protects but does not bind them, and binds but does not protect the rest of us. That’s conservatism 101.
And she thinks everyone in this country is going to swallow it hook, line & sinker. She is sorely mistaken.
She won’t mind joining them then.
To a Tory, everything is moral. EVERYTHING.
The problem is that morals are subjective, so if this is ‘completely moral’ what other horrors do these people have in the pipeline?
>“What I’m saying to the critics of the policy, who don’t have an
alternative about how we deal with this illegal migration, is they don’t
have an alternative, **they are criticising our policy, which is**
**effective and does work**.”
How can they know if the policy works if they haven’t actually run the policy yet?
she has no morals the grey racist hag
She’s competing with Priti now
This incompetent one will say and write anything and everything! Follwing her fucking master’s voice. Poor thing
It is technically legal, that does not make it moral. It might have its supporters but so do a lot of questionable policies, such as not giving kids free lunches over the holidays or forcing disabled people to go through humiliating PIP assessments; Tory supporters might be OK with them but we have been judged by international organisations based on how we treat the disabled under the law. It is the same with the Rwanda policy. You cannot say something is moral over and over again in the hope that it becomes true, although people will almost certainly believe it (sadly).
What are peoples objection to the policy? Genuine question.
She was on TV today saying it was needed to stop ‘people traffickers’ which just shows how little they have thought about it, or how little they think of the public. I mean by definition the Government is moving people between countries without their consent (i.e. trafficking), as a ‘moral’ position its not far off pro-lifers killing doctors who perform abortions.
Christ, you should have heard on the Today prog. Absolutely fucking hopeless.
Yep, completely moral in Lizzies book. But then again, Lizzy doesn’t have any morals.
Probably a relationship with a married man (and allegedly others) is OK in her book. Being in a cabinet with a misogynist OK too.
Lets see now. Nestle says slavery is needed if you want chocolate. UK deporting poor to Rwanda.
British Empire: “Looks like slavery is back on the table boys!”
They are going to spend between £250,000 to £400,000 for a flight, potentially containing approx 7 (seven) asylum seekers to send a message to the people traffickers.
I can’t think what message they are sending except for we are idiots !
So many people in the current cabinet are so terrible at their jobs it is frightening.
Im assuming thats a typo and she meant amoral?
Hey Liz, you dropped this > im
This sub is full of Britain haters, grow up!!!
The amount of upstanding moralists on here is incredible.
What a bastion of morality this place is.
Truly some of the finest most compassionate souls can be Found right here on r/uk
Bravo.
Keep up the “good work”
Not sure what’s wrong with this policy. The refugees will be safe there.
24 comments
Well if Dizzy Lizzy says it’s moral….
Absolutely love this – not only as a reaction to comments from that bastion of morality in the 21st century the Catholic Church (who have objectively overseen the largest systemic child abuse organisation in the history of the world) but also that Truss let’s the mask slip by prefacing “it’s moral” with “it’s legal”, because to Tories (and, they think, to *you*, because they think you’re stupid) legal and moral mean the same thing when they *patently a fundamentally do not*.
Slavery was legal. Marital rape was legal. Child abuse was legal. Colonial oppression was legal. There is less than no equivalence between law and morality.
Unless you’re a Tory, who believes the law protects but does not bind them, and binds but does not protect the rest of us. That’s conservatism 101.
And she thinks everyone in this country is going to swallow it hook, line & sinker. She is sorely mistaken.
She won’t mind joining them then.
To a Tory, everything is moral. EVERYTHING.
The problem is that morals are subjective, so if this is ‘completely moral’ what other horrors do these people have in the pipeline?
>“What I’m saying to the critics of the policy, who don’t have an
alternative about how we deal with this illegal migration, is they don’t
have an alternative, **they are criticising our policy, which is**
**effective and does work**.”
How can they know if the policy works if they haven’t actually run the policy yet?
she has no morals the grey racist hag
She’s competing with Priti now
This incompetent one will say and write anything and everything! Follwing her fucking master’s voice. Poor thing
It is technically legal, that does not make it moral. It might have its supporters but so do a lot of questionable policies, such as not giving kids free lunches over the holidays or forcing disabled people to go through humiliating PIP assessments; Tory supporters might be OK with them but we have been judged by international organisations based on how we treat the disabled under the law. It is the same with the Rwanda policy. You cannot say something is moral over and over again in the hope that it becomes true, although people will almost certainly believe it (sadly).
What are peoples objection to the policy? Genuine question.
She was on TV today saying it was needed to stop ‘people traffickers’ which just shows how little they have thought about it, or how little they think of the public. I mean by definition the Government is moving people between countries without their consent (i.e. trafficking), as a ‘moral’ position its not far off pro-lifers killing doctors who perform abortions.
Christ, you should have heard on the Today prog. Absolutely fucking hopeless.
Yep, completely moral in Lizzies book. But then again, Lizzy doesn’t have any morals.
Probably a relationship with a married man (and allegedly others) is OK in her book. Being in a cabinet with a misogynist OK too.
Lets see now. Nestle says slavery is needed if you want chocolate. UK deporting poor to Rwanda.
British Empire: “Looks like slavery is back on the table boys!”
They are going to spend between £250,000 to £400,000 for a flight, potentially containing approx 7 (seven) asylum seekers to send a message to the people traffickers.
I can’t think what message they are sending except for we are idiots !
So many people in the current cabinet are so terrible at their jobs it is frightening.
Im assuming thats a typo and she meant amoral?
Hey Liz, you dropped this > im
This sub is full of Britain haters, grow up!!!
The amount of upstanding moralists on here is incredible.
What a bastion of morality this place is.
Truly some of the finest most compassionate souls can be Found right here on r/uk
Bravo.
Keep up the “good work”
Not sure what’s wrong with this policy. The refugees will be safe there.
They are tone deaf
Lol branflakes