|
Post by Feedo Gnasher on Jun 14, 2022 14:31:45 GMT 1
It’s nauseating to hear criticisms from the right-wing of some of the appeals and court hearings, like they truly believe the government should be able to do whatever they want regardless of the legalities of it. If the courts rule against it then clearly they should not go, and it’s not the laws that are wrong but the policy.
Obviously if the deportations are allowed then people can still object to it on either moral or practical grounds, or both.
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Jun 14, 2022 15:11:15 GMT 1
Agree whole heartily it’s is a flight of shame….should have filled it to reduce cost Who do you suggest they fill it with?
|
|
|
Post by returnofthehype on Jun 14, 2022 18:09:03 GMT 1
Agree whole heartily it’s is a flight of shame….should have filled it to reduce cost Who do you suggest they fill it with? Anyone who meets the legal requirements….why send a plane half way around word with handful of people…..if there are not enough to fill now, then wait until there is….or preferably don’t allow any more in the country who are not entitled to be. On a positive note they will no doubt be travelling In more comfort to Africa then they did arriving here…silver clouds and all that 👍👍
|
|
|
Post by dachshund on Jun 14, 2022 18:52:50 GMT 1
Easy to see why the Tories routinely indulge in performative cruelty. Grabs them votes from the malevolent and the small-minded across shropshire and elsewhere
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Jun 14, 2022 20:27:13 GMT 1
(can’t find a thread?) Today our first deportation flight to Rwanda is due to leave at a cost of £500,000… Originally around 100 deportees we’re due to fly but now down to 7 all pending appeals….. Meanwhile ….”Judges will consider whether the policy is lawful next month - this could see some people returned to the UK from Rwanda if it is ruled unlawful” One question. Are Liz Truss and Preti Patel pud evil? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61791994 I think you reminded them ;-) it does seem the usual case of damned if they do, damned if they don't, no matter what the subject Your right they can claim assylum BUT (whoops i shouted, no just stressing) we can legally remove them to a third country if the failed to claim asylum there 'The short answer is that anyone is allowed to claim asylum anywhere, but states may lawfully remove asylum seekers to safe third countries on the grounds that they could have claimed asylum there. '
Lets say they arrived in Italy, they then spend time travelling through 2 safe countries to reach the UK Why, through personal choice not to find a safe country... they're already in one...Oh and we do have UK border controls in French ferry ports.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jun 14, 2022 20:56:57 GMT 1
I believe Priti enjoys a bit of bullying, but perhaps she could spare a couple of minutes to sort this out?
|
|
Drew
Midland League Division One
Posts: 416
|
Post by Drew on Jun 14, 2022 22:11:47 GMT 1
Flight not happening.
Goodbye Human Rights Act 1998. Repealed within a year.
|
|
|
Post by Worthingshrew on Jun 14, 2022 22:20:03 GMT 1
250 came across the channel today. The deterrent of sending them to Rwanda is obviously not working. Another Boris lie.
|
|
|
Post by edgmond on Jun 14, 2022 22:32:31 GMT 1
The whole thing is undoubtedly an expensive stunt to pander to the Redwallers, probably the only group that still seems to think Johnson has any credibility whatsoever. This, along with the self-induced mess over Northern Ireland, is a desperate attempt to try to show some form of benefit from Brexit (control of borders?!). If it makes any difference to the flow of boats crossing the Channel I’ll be amazed.
Of course, we can all believe the Daily Mailesque hype about being swamped by migrants if it suits our prejudices, but the facts are that the UK takes far fewer asylum seekers than Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Austria.
Oh, and another thing….has Patel been anywhere in sight today? It seem to have fallen on Liz Truss to defend the farce. No doubt a ploy by Johnson to reduce further the credibility of one of his potential rivals.
|
|
|
Post by Worthingshrew on Jun 14, 2022 22:42:26 GMT 1
Sadly, this will resurrect Boris’s popularity with the right-wingers and racists in the country, and he knows it.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Jun 14, 2022 23:27:31 GMT 1
250 came across the channel today. The deterrent of sending them to Rwanda is obviously not working. Another Boris lie. what do you suggest we do instead ? put on a free P&O hourly cruise ship from Calais to Dover, buy them all a house and plant a money tree in each garden . you have all the questions but never any answers
|
|
|
Post by returnofthehype on Jun 14, 2022 23:38:37 GMT 1
250 came across the channel today. The deterrent of sending them to Rwanda is obviously not working. Another Boris lie. what do you suggest we do instead ? put on a free P&O hourly cruise ship from Calais to Dover, buy them all a house and plant a money tree in each garden . you have all the questions but never any answers That would be one idea alternatively some strategically placed spikes, a water equivalent to what the police use to stop cars.
|
|
|
Post by edgmond on Jun 15, 2022 0:03:45 GMT 1
250 came across the channel today. The deterrent of sending them to Rwanda is obviously not working. Another Boris lie. what do you suggest we do instead ? put on a free P&O hourly cruise ship from Calais to Dover, buy them all a house and plant a money tree in each garden . you have all the questions but never any answers Well, it might be cheaper than chartering a 767 to Kigali and would meet Patel’s stated aim of putting the people traffickers out of business.
|
|
|
Post by edgmond on Jun 15, 2022 0:07:21 GMT 1
what do you suggest we do instead ? put on a free P&O hourly cruise ship from Calais to Dover, buy them all a house and plant a money tree in each garden . you have all the questions but never any answers That would be one idea alternatively some strategically placed spikes, a water equivalent to what the police use to stop cars. That’s a sickening comment, although you no doubt consider it to be ‘humour’. These are human beings we are talking about. Shameful.
|
|
|
Post by returnofthehype on Jun 15, 2022 0:26:14 GMT 1
That would be one idea alternatively some strategically placed spikes, a water equivalent to what the police use to stop cars. That’s a sickening comment, although you no doubt consider it to be ‘humour’. These are human beings we are talking about. Shameful. Apologises you seem to have misinterpreted what I meant……I wasn’t advocating using spikes or any other sharp object on any humans…….just the dinghies they use to enter illegally 👍👍 Hope that clears that up my mate
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Jun 15, 2022 5:27:29 GMT 1
That’s a sickening comment, although you no doubt consider it to be ‘humour’. These are human beings we are talking about. Shameful. Apologises you seem to have misinterpreted what I meant……I wasn’t advocating using spikes or any other sharp object on any humans…….just the dinghies they use to enter illegally 👍👍 Hope that clears that up my mate So you don't actually want to impale them, just drown them. How very human of you.
|
|
|
Post by Worthingshrew on Jun 15, 2022 7:06:15 GMT 1
250 came across the channel today. The deterrent of sending them to Rwanda is obviously not working. Another Boris lie. what do you suggest we do instead ? put on a free P&O hourly cruise ship from Calais to Dover, buy them all a house and plant a money tree in each garden . you have all the questions but never any answers I don’t have the answer, but I haven’t been Home Secretary for 3 years making it my priority and spouting on about it for years. But clearly the idea that it will deter them is absurd. I apologise for the error it my original post - it wasn’t 250 it was about 400 who weren’t deterred yesterday. With the shortages in virtually all sectors of the economy, we should be welcoming people who want to make a life for themselves here.
|
|
|
Post by Feedo Gnasher on Jun 15, 2022 7:20:57 GMT 1
Absolutely madness how it’s now the European Court of Human Rights which is the problem and not the policy.
We’re on such a slippery slope with talk of abandoning that. People have lost their minds.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jun 15, 2022 7:25:12 GMT 1
I tend to agree how do you stop illegal immigration who are being paid thousands of pounds to smugglers? We have got here because France don't give a dam about it, we even offered our border control to France who turned it down. Are these people in danger in France or wanting to come to Britain as an opportunity? What i don't agree with is sending people to Rwanda who are wanted by Iranian government, was reading an article yesterday that they were going to sent an ex police governor who had whistle blown, now he will get no protection in Africa and will be dead in a few months. Each case needs evaluating and looking at very carefully. I'd say that's the crux of it for me, whether Rwanda is indeed a safe and secure country in which to resettle people. I'm pretty sure from what I have read the UN and the EU deem it so, as do the Danish by the looks. I just feel that the UK or indeed any country's obligation is to resettle people in a safe and secure location away from the country or area they deemed they needed to flee. Whether the UK, Rwanda or elsewhere, as long as its a safe and secure location. We have seen here in the EU for example countries looking to resettle people across Europe in order to share the numbers who are arriving. Some are willing to do so, some not. Here we have a case of a country, Rwanda, willing to do so in partnership with the UK. People will look to the geography perhaps but like I say, if its a safe and secure place then I see no issue. Whether it will deter the channel crossings, no idea. Remains to be seen. I think the majority of us have our doubts. They still should have waited on the ruling as to whether the policy is lawful, mind. Not sure why they just didn't wait on that.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Jun 15, 2022 7:49:57 GMT 1
So far we've one person suggesting that we sink the boats and let them drown in the Channel, several that would appear to be happy to scrap the Human Rights Act and step away from European Convention on Human Rights and one saying that this exactly what they voted for in 2016. It is actually quite concerning that some people don't even realise that those pesky Europeans at the ECHR also protect their human rights.
We are seeing a huge step to the right in this country and personally I would rather have a few thousand healthy, working age men arriving on boats every week than see my human rights eroded by this government. They are already trying to outlaw protests, what next? The right to freedom of expression? The right to equal treatment before the law? The right to an education? Freedom of or from religion? The right to free and fair elections? The right not to be tortured? The right to marry? The right to actually live? These are just some of the protections afforded to us by the HRA 1998 which is tied to the ECHR rules. Anyone care to point out those they are willing to give up?
Just as an aside, it was that famous lefty Winston Churchill who played a major role in the setting up of the ECHR. What an absolute wetter he must have been eh?
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Jun 15, 2022 8:23:48 GMT 1
Was Boris at the England game? Sure I heard ‘You Don’t Know What Your Doing’ ringing out…..
|
|
|
Post by block12massive on Jun 15, 2022 8:38:50 GMT 1
So far we've one person suggesting that we sink the boats and let them drown in the Channel, several that would appear to be happy to scrap the Human Rights Act and step away from European Convention on Human Rights and one saying that this exactly what they voted for in 2016. It is actually quite concerning that some people don't even realise that those pesky Europeans at the ECHR also protect their human rights.
We are seeing a huge step to the right in this country and personally I would rather have a few thousand healthy, working age men arriving on boats every week than see my human rights eroded by this government. They are already trying to outlaw protests, what next? The right to freedom of expression? The right to equal treatment before the law? The right to an education? Freedom of or from religion? The right to free and fair elections? The right not to be tortured? The right to marry? The right to actually live? These are just some of the protections afforded to us by the HRA 1998 which is tied to the ECHR rules. Anyone care to point out those they are willing to give up?
Just as an aside, it was that famous lefty Winston Churchill who played a major role in the setting up of the ECHR. What an absolute wetter he must have been eh?
Why would you start with 'working age men' as opposed to women, children or those fleeing war? The umpteenth reminder on this thread that there is already a legal asylum route into this country. You'd honestly be forgiven for thinking we have a zero immigration policy if you listened to some.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jun 15, 2022 9:07:49 GMT 1
250 came across the channel today. The deterrent of sending them to Rwanda is obviously not working. Another Boris lie. what do you suggest we do instead ? put on a free P&O hourly cruise ship from Calais to Dover, buy them all a house and plant a money tree in each garden . you have all the questions but never any answers As was stated further up the thread, the UK takes far fewer asylum seekers than Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Austria. So, what with our shortage of people for jobs, we probably should be taking more. We should also try to move to processing every applicant in France so that those coming over without permission in little boats had no chance of actually gaining refugee status here.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Jun 15, 2022 9:35:53 GMT 1
So far we've one person suggesting that we sink the boats and let them drown in the Channel, several that would appear to be happy to scrap the Human Rights Act and step away from European Convention on Human Rights and one saying that this exactly what they voted for in 2016. It is actually quite concerning that some people don't even realise that those pesky Europeans at the ECHR also protect their human rights.
We are seeing a huge step to the right in this country and personally I would rather have a few thousand healthy, working age men arriving on boats every week than see my human rights eroded by this government. They are already trying to outlaw protests, what next? The right to freedom of expression? The right to equal treatment before the law? The right to an education? Freedom of or from religion? The right to free and fair elections? The right not to be tortured? The right to marry? The right to actually live? These are just some of the protections afforded to us by the HRA 1998 which is tied to the ECHR rules. Anyone care to point out those they are willing to give up?
Just as an aside, it was that famous lefty Winston Churchill who played a major role in the setting up of the ECHR. What an absolute wetter he must have been eh?
Why would you start with 'working age men' as opposed to women, children or those fleeing war? The umpteenth reminder on this thread that there is already a legal asylum route into this country.You'd honestly be forgiven for thinking we have a zero immigration policy if you listened to some. Care to enlighten us all?
The UK asylum system demands that applicants are physically in the UK to apply. If you have traveled here illegally or through a 3rd country that is deemed to be safe you may well be turned down.
So you have to be in the UK, you must have arrived legally and you can't have traveled through another county to get here. Now I can't be 100% certain, but I'm pretty sure that there are no direct flights from Afghanistan to the UK, so any asylum seeker from there would need to pass though at least one 3rd country, so that would in effect bar them from claiming asylum. Same goes for those flying in from Iran, Iraq and Eritrea.
I'm not sure that you could possibly find a way to get to the UK legally without having to pass through a 3rd country.
The only other way is to apply for refugee status from inside one of the myriad of refugee camps in the world and hope that it somehow makes it to the top of the pile one day.
Even the Law Society says that the new law from April this year will damage Britain's standing in the world. “The UK helped create the United Nations Refugee Convention after the Second World War. The Nationality and Borders Act will undermine this international accord, damaging the rule of law and Britain’s reputation for justice and fairness,” Law Society president I. Stephanie Boyce said.
Then again, what do those bloody lefty lawyers know anyway?
|
|
|
Post by block12massive on Jun 15, 2022 9:41:23 GMT 1
what do you suggest we do instead ? put on a free P&O hourly cruise ship from Calais to Dover, buy them all a house and plant a money tree in each garden . you have all the questions but never any answers As was stated further up the thread, the UK takes far fewer asylum seekers than Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Austria. So, what with our shortage of people for jobs, we probably should be taking more. We should also try to move to processing every applicant in France so that those coming over without permission in little boats had no chance of actually gaining refugee status here. Germany is hardly a beacon of a successful immigration policy in recent years. Have you seen the crime rates in Germany? 37% of all suspects of sexual assault crime are non-German nationals. Even larger numbers involved in things like theft and fraud. Germany may have the infrastructure that we don't to handle six figure immigration numbers every year but it's come at a cost. Though Stutty may be able to offer more on this subject than me. Once again, we already have a visa system in place for skilled workers to come and work in the UK. Non-skilled labour positions should be picked up by local people offered a decent living wage and realistic working conditions..
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Jun 15, 2022 10:42:13 GMT 1
That would be one idea alternatively some strategically placed spikes, a water equivalent to what the police use to stop cars. That’s a sickening comment, although you no doubt consider it to be ‘humour’. These are human beings we are talking about. Shameful. these human beings you mention are said to have fled their own country due to them not feeling safe then after travelling through dozens of safe countries they reach the edge of france and pay someone to put their lives at a massive risk to attempt to take them illegally to the uk the uk has come up with a safe plan for them which hopefully in the long run will save lives and put traffickers out of business buy hey let's not look further than the ends of our noses , let's just take the opportunity to moan about something we don't normally moan about because it's a cheap shot at the government and those who speak out against cheap shots
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Jun 15, 2022 10:58:41 GMT 1
Beyond the headlines about the flights and court cases, this is another case where its very clear this government is hopeless at writing effective policy and legislation.
Human rights legislation isn't really in my main sphere of work, but once the new policy was announced it became clear very quickly from people who work in legal fields that the policy was shot with holes and lots of challenges would result from it. We're seeing that with lots of government legislation and policies too, as shown by the Northern Ireland protocol issues this week, and the whole mess they got into with Covid legislation
What I'm less clear on is why this government is so hopeless at writing effective legislation across the whole of government.
I was no fan of the Cameron administration, but they did make a much better job of writing policy. For example in coming to power in 2010 they consulted on and rewrote planning policy in just over 2 years, and while the legislation wasn't totally fantasic, it provided the biggest reform of planning law in 25 years, and the policies are still working 10 years later. Going back further the Thatcher led government was also really good on legislation and policy. People might not have liked the policies, but when published they certainly didn't fall apart as quickly as this Governments policies seem to.
Until the Government take policy development seriously its going to keep running into problems. Its a serious issue Johnson needs to address
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jun 15, 2022 12:00:34 GMT 1
It's not "Flight of shame", it's "Government of shame".
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jun 15, 2022 12:41:01 GMT 1
Agree whole heartily it’s is a flight of shame….should have filled it to reduce cost I'd agree "whole heartily" if you and your likers were the ones filling the seats.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jun 15, 2022 12:45:15 GMT 1
Sadly, this will resurrect Boris’s popularity with the right-wingers and racists in the country, and he knows it. That's what this is all about. Bury partygate and talk of ditching Johnson by fanning the flames of this wedge policy to bring Tory supporters back in line. Everything this monstrous government does is about self-preservation. That's always their first priority - not a single principle between them.
|
|