Supreme Court (UK edition) for the win
Just as male heterosexuals are free to enjoy themselves playing rugby, drinking beer and talking about girls with their mates, so male homosexuals are to be free to enjoy themselves going to Kylie concerts, drinking exotically coloured cocktails and talking about boys with their straight female mates.
Great ruling, though. And nice to see the government welcoming it, in a weird departure from precedent and stereotype.
Of course, the Sun had to spoil it: Gay illegals can stay. Err, no, you bigoted idiots, they aren’t illegals, they’re legitimate refugees – that’s exactly what the Supreme Court ruling has just determined…
It’s interesting to watch the Sun, actually – they clearly don’t like the socially liberal side of the coalition (which is real) but it’s not entirely clear what they’d prefer.
The current affairs forum I generally take the temperature of the tabloid-reading classes is an instructive read, too:
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/20/33667014-gay-asylum-seekers-win-uk-case.html
Shorter: the floodgates are open, we’ll be flooded with pretending-to-be-gay illegals who will then breed. We should test them with a cucumber.
I’m a little confused. While the ruling is sensible, what is to stop someone saying “You can’t send me home, I’m gay!”? Are they required to prove it (!)? What if they failed to mention this initially – would this be held against them? Maybe I should’ve done a law degree…
Are they required to prove it (!)?
Yes, just like any other asylum seeker. HTH.