Flight to Rwanda

[lbab1702]

I’d love to get a flight to Rwanda. Beautiful country and people ( I’ve been there before) but I don’t understand why refugees to the U.K. should go there.

There’s a lack of empathy in this debate.
One side can’t see how the uk has a responsibility to help asylum seekers and economic migrants, the other side refuses to see how it’s almost exclusively the poorest members of our society who are negatively impacted by this type of migration.
We need a wholistic, worldwide approach which means asylum seekers are helped, economic migrants are given opportunities but the impact isn’t suffered by small, poor, already struggling, already marginalised communities.

Who said I was left? You don’t have to be left to think shit ideas are shit ideas?

Still, great to see some people are outraged by that remark far more than the topic at hand. Really sums it all up.

Technically the ECHR is separate from the EU the institution but it is part of the court system in Europe as a whole.

There's nothing technical about it. And what "court system in Europe as a whole" are you talking about? Each country has its own court system.

Ahhh well.... one thing I know is. I know who are the DMail readers on this thread. Pretty obvious with the nonsense they are parrotting.

Well, my DS has ASD and having lived through 13 years of insults, exclusion and bullying, I’m pretty sensitised to the issue.
lots of people in my position use this site. You should just apologise, and reflect that other minorities also deserve decent treatment; not just your favoured class.

Clearly @Freerangechildren has a warped view of the reality.

You should just apologise, and reflect that other minorities also deserve decent treatment

Oh the irony…

Still, great to see some people are outraged by that remark

Well I said a bit off so outraged is a stretch. But yes I think it’s disablist and should be avoided. If you are not on the left are you on the right?

A lot of people who claim asylum here do so because they

1. have family members already here. It is vital for refugees to have support and a network when resettling. Family members is the best sort, why would you not wait to claim asylum until you reached a destination where your family already are?


2. they speak English- many refugees do not speak other languages but have some smattering of English even if picked up from music videos and the like. They feel it more achievable to learn the language to fully integrate and be able to work.


3. the British empire once held sway over nearly 1/4 of the entire world population, and even at that point had been a previous influence in other countries in terms of trade routes and politics. Whilst those old empire countries have since become independent, the vestige of the empire remains in their culture and ways of life. Of course people will want to try to make for a country they at least think they sort of understand.

most of these economic migrants you call them, are fleeing form a country where they are living in extreme stress…syria has been at war for years and the west has by and large ignored …children are starving…opposition members are being tortured and killed…they’re economic migrants? Yeah right. Same is true for many countries.

There is only one way to stop refugees, and the current government has done a hell of a lot to make that worse by cutting overseas funding. People will not leave their own country, community and culture if they are safe and have resources to survive and their children to flourish and take advantage of opportunities to improve their lot. We have to tackle the reasons why people are fleeing their own countries, not try to put up barriers once they are forced to flee and are on the move. That’s like trying to stem a flood with a finger in the dyke. No amounts of threats or detarants will work - people will always have hope that can be better off someone else than starving to death or being under threat of arrest. It is that hope, essential to human survival, that will drive people on and take huge risks to get to someone where they believe their future will be better.

Churchill would literally be turning in his grave at how this has all turned out. No doubt he would consider this ghastly mess over a glass of whiskey and wonder what was the fucking point of so many millions being killed in the fields and in the trenches, for us to end up here in 2022. Literally battling to make our own decisions at every turn.

So entrenched in this mire of red tape.

We will reflect and so will our grandchildren on these times in the future, and ponder those pp that forgot the lessons of the past so quickly, and were brainwashed into believing this is somehow ever acceptable in a true democracy and civilised nation.

We are fast becoming a post democratic country and an interesting read for those that care is very enlightening written by Colin Crouch a Political Scientist at Warwick.

We are just entering the fourth industrial revolution, a new cold war and your only idea is to do nothing?

How does it "swiftly" deal with the situation? It was announced weeks ago, has trafficking stopped in the interim?

You will no doubt say that the reason it hasn't is the legal challenges. But the government knew perfectly well that they would happen, and that they were highly likely to succeed for very good reasons. So why not go for a sensible alternative such as those referred to upthread which you keep ignoring?

sorry, what irony?
an apology for using ableist hate speech would cost you nothing but a bit of pride. Yet you can’t do it. Whatever is driving your vitriol in this issue, it isn’t compassion.

People will not leave their own country, community and culture if they are safe and have resources to survive and their children to flourish

Can you please outline how you intend to fund the trillions and trillions required to resource every country and community worldwide to stop the endless flow of economic migrants Emily? I would love to see how you intend to fund this, and how you think it will work.

Magical thinking doesn't even cover it.

It amazes me that people can take the time to type a paragraph of shit on Mumsnet but can’t type 3 or 4 words into Google.

On the whole I am not a fan of ventriloquising the dead but I think it’s a fair bet that Churchill didn’t think the ECHR was about us losing h the ability to control our borders. So best to leave him out of it.

@TullyApplebottom, this doesn't stop us controlling our borders. It stops us doing so in ways that contravene the EHRC to which Churchill signed us up. So probably best to keep Churchill very much in the frame, especially given how much Boris aspires to be seen as his successor.

amary You clearly have no idea how the court systems actually work. Yes every country has a court system, but the ECHR have the power to overrule them at any point if they wish to do so in all 47 countries (all European) signed up.

Which basically means that the ECHR can render a country toothless as we have just seen perfectly illustrated.

Of course one does not have to continue with the ECHR if it is detrimental.

The government haven't got it right about fuel prices, about the cost of living, about our economic forecast, about our services, about money & contracts being thrown at friends and family (and covered up), lied to our faces and yet somehow they have the perfect scheme to end cross channel asylum seekers. Pull the other one.

@EmilyBolton
Brilliant post of yours.

the other side refuses to see how it’s almost exclusively the poorest members of our society who are negatively impacted by this type of migration.

But this type of migration is a teeny tiny part of migration as a whole. Ask Priti Patel, most migrants to the UK are here legally, they come here to work, study or join their families. Asylum seekers make up a tiny proportion of the immigration statistics.

Oh, the irony of claiming that someone else has no idea of how court systems of work followed by total fiction.

No, the ECHR does not have power to overrule court decisions "at any point if they wish to do so". It has power to overrule IF it is asked to intervene (and generally only after every avenue has been tried within the relevant court system) and IF it is demonstrated that there has been a breach of Convention rights. It can and does regularly reject claims. It can't render any country "toothless" if that country has complied with its Convention duties. It doesn't just swoop in arbitrarily because it fancies it.

And it is not part of an EU court system. When we signed up to it, the EU didn't even exist.

Except for EmilyBolton hasn't outlined how she will fund the resourcing of every country in the world, so that the children will flourish and not need to take the arduous trip here. That small detail of who is going to pay the multi trillion bill, as if it were even possible to achieve roussette so stupid and illogical that Labour strangely have not even dared to suggest it, even with the money tree they apparently have to banish world wide poverty!

To people actually believe this BS?!

@Freerangechildren Who’s idea is it to do nothing? Those you disagree with have given plenty of ideas, which you have dismissed outright. What’s your solution? The Rwanda plan? That’s been shown by other countries experiences to increase people smuggling and trafficking? Is that suddenly ok if it’s out of sight and not on the UK’s shores?

The government could set up safe routes and resettlement schemes (we’ve seen how those work well for Ukraine and Hong Kong, less well for Afghanistan but will hopefully improve) to control immigration numbers. But there doesn’t seem to be the political will. The current government seems to prefer uncontrolled boat crossing with uncontrolled numbers.

For the rest of your post, it is really sad. The cuts in school budgets, in mental health care, in the NHS, in welfare. Those are all political choices and they’re impacting on the most vulnerable in society.

If you believe (which I don’t, to be clear) that this is all the fault of asylum seekers (0.25% of the UK’s total population) then surely the next logical step is to ask why do you think the government prioritising them over you?

Why were they happy to spend £500,000 on a flight that never left, rather than putting it into your local hospital?

Why are they happy to spend millions on an offshoring scheme rather than on improving services in your local area?

Why are they happy to spend money in court on a plan they knew would fail, rather than offer children free school meals?

There certainly seems to be a magic Conservative money tree, but only for things they want, not for things we need.

Yet it still can have deep impacts on our poorest.

It has power to overrule IF it is asked to intervene

Oh yes and there are plenty of people lining up to request that intervention starting with Macron no doubt!! And I hardly imagine the ECHR were desperate to decline.....

So I guess we will be leaving the ECHR......

Good luck with persuading your fellow travellers that he wasn’t a filthy racist then …