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.

wow there's some real burgeoning fascism on here. I keep away from MN a lot now because there's so many frothers but this is something else.

I actually support migration and resettlement schemes, I always have.

I happen to think there is a place in our country for those in need, and we ourselves support our local charity here to raise funds for our local Afghan families that need furniture and children's toys and shoes etc.

However it must be an orderly and manageable system. We can not see gangs and criminals trafficking people, families drowning at sea, hooded men arriving here that have had no security clearance.
Anyone that was in London the day of the terrorist bombs will know that the need for a system to check and know the people arriving here are safe, have good intentions to work and make a life here and are honest about their need for shelter from their own country etc.

If this policy deters the practice of human trafficking even fractionally that will help.

There is a case for immigration and a system that is fair and transparent of course, but not a free for all with an unmanaged criminal racket which we currently see right now.

When are people going to realise that PM Johnson's half baked ideas are only done to garner headlines. They don't actually work.🙄

Oh, FFS. When you're reduced to "It's based in foreignland so it must be foreign" you really are scraping the barrel. On that basis every UK citizen with a holiday home across the channel is technically foreign when they're there.

And, yet again, stop trying to skew the argument by talking about "one MERE British judge". He is our representative in accordance with the treaty which we freely agree to, and we are in no worse nor better position than any of the other countries involved who also have only one "mere" judge.

It can't overrule decisions made by our courts at will. It cannot get involved in any case unless it is referred to it, and an absolutely minute proportion of British decisions do get referred. Individuals can only refer cases that have exhausted British systems, and again only a minute proportion of our cases even get as far as the Supreme Court. It can only overrule decisions if they conflict with our obligations under the European Human Rights, not "at will". And it regularly refuses to do so.

You seem to work on the basis that it's the monster the Daily Mail would like us to believe it to be. It simply isn't.

wow there's some real burgeoning fascism on here. I keep away from MN a lot now because there's so many frothers but this is something else

Perhaps you should look at your own form of fascism? Not wanting people to drown at sea is hardly unreasonable.

Most of his supporters, such as they are, know that. They enjoy the chaos and people they don't like lamenting the chaos.

It’s literally in the article I posted.

The Offshoring policy did not reduce the number of boats. The number of deaths due to boat crossings also did not reduce.

From the article you didn’t read:

“"The government's own data on the impact of offshore processing on boat arrivals is the starkest revelation of this policy's failure. During its first year, more people sought asylum in Australia by boat than at any other time since boat arrivals were first recorded in the 1970s. Deaths at sea also continued at broadly comparable rates to previous years. People continued to seek safety in Australia via maritime routes until they physically could not do so anymore. The 2013 launch of Operation Sovereign Borders, and the Abbott government's commitment to intercepting and returning people trying to reach Australia by boat — no matter the legal and humanitarian consequences — effectively rendered it futile to try and reach Australia by sea."”

”Operation Sovereign Borders” involved the navy pushing back and towing boats out of Australian waters. A naval blockade if you like, which is what caused the numbers to drastically drop.

Can we do that in the UK? No. Is is morally acceptable? Also no. So the comparison is irrelevant.

But you accept the purpose of the ECHR is to overrule the legal conclusions made in peaceful democratic countries right?

That is what has happened here. Our courts settled on one legal view. Correct.
ECHR decided it was for them to ignore that and over rule it.

It really is very simple. The POINT of the ECHR has been entirely corrupted now, because it is has severely overstepped.

If the Governement genuinely wanted to conserve public money they would have waited for the Judicial Review process to conclude.

They sent £120 million to Rwanda and spent £500, 000 on an empty flight without waiting for the British courts. Strange.

I think to look for solutions you’re going to have to acknowledge global issues that are surfacing

I know it’s easier to plop in with an insult like the pp but maybe discuss what route you prefer

It’s not what anyone wants, but I do think things will shift in a way that makes things very hard for many - possibly as with Australia Labor, the left of a country won’t run with the alternative as people won’t vote for them

It’s a shame people can’t discuss outside just lobbing insults, what they see happening due to marked migration and climate change.

Maybe they see a different path out of the problems? I’m up for new views on how they think it will emerge.

if you look at Aus figures numbers have fallen markedly. I think it was reversed briefly, numbers went up, and then reinstated. Iirc highest about 20,000 at around 2013 people to 0 or near. It’s a tough one as obviously some very harsh measures have been adopted, but they have impacted figures

^ this brave

The Sun is now running with a 'Starmer is trying undo brexit' story.

Operation: Distract From Partygate is really in full swing.

I think we are all very open to realistic solutions to this migrant crisis? Because it is a crisis and one that is affecting many thousands of people.

Every time a boat sinks, and someone pays to die are you going to feel happy that we did nothing at all, as a country to prevent those deaths?

Because no one at all on this thread has suggested even one single thing so far.

Does anyone seriously think the perilous and expensive journey here is even worth it? For one room in Bolton and a life of abject poverty? France surely has better weather at least. The migrants are sold a dream, and this is all it is a pipe dream of great riches, and yet in just a few years if things carry on we won't even have the most basic of services to offer anyone if we don't get a grip soon.

Agree totally.

Did you miss my post explaining why that happened? 11:04am.

Do you think anyone anywhere seriously cares about partygate? I think many of us are waiting for the conclusions of beergate actually, and the potential resignation of the labour leader.

I don't read the sun so couldn't comment.

Where?

Johnson has apologised multiple times, has been fined for his birthday cake, has survived a confidence vote. I really don't think there is any rope left to be fair.

Starmer however is a sitting duck when the constabulary finally finish discussing how they can be seen to be excusing him from a fine, even though he clearly should be fined, without it looking obvious to the public that they are biased and corrupt. How long does it take to investigate a dinner party?!!

He hasnt apologised for lying, sorry, misleading Parliament.

If he's prepared to mislead the House of Commons regarding whether he broke his own legislation why should we trust him on anything else?

Each country should have the final say on their legal settled views, and it is a misuse, perhaps an abuse of power for the ECHR to involve themselves with our court rulings will be the final straw trust me

How can it be an abuse of power if each country involved has freely agreed to it and takes part in it? It's like claiming that it's an abuse of power to expect the person who contracted to sell you a house and accepted your money to move out on the agreed date.

Do you think anyone anywhere seriously cares about partygate?

Yes.

Again, I know you're roleplaying as someone who thinks Johnson's great for kicks but you are still allowed to touch base with reality sometimes.

@Freerangechildren You keep saying that no one at all on this thread has suggested even one thing, despite the many posts suggesting other things, some of which you have even agreed with.

We can see the suggestions in black and white on this thread. We can see you agreeing with them in black and white on this thread.

Yet you’ve failed to respond with evidence for your “hundreds of resettlement schemes”
and “hundreds or thousands” of people resettled, you’ve ignored the Home Office links I’ve provided with the real numbers and you’ve ignored my answer (twice) about the Australian offshoring scheme. Which is of course your prerogative, and you don’t owe me or anyone an answer.

Mate, it's quicker just to write "I haven't a fucking clue what I'm on about so please break it down for me".

Also are you going to respond to @BewareTheLibrarians post at 11.04am or are you just going to skirt round that?

Except that they aren't "old duffers". And our courts have yet to adjudicate on the legality or otherwise of the Rwanda scheme as a whole. I wonder what your reaction will be if they decide it's illegal? I suspect you won't be so keen on the sanctity of our courts then.

Bear in mind, too, that the Supreme Court was only prepared to let flights go ahead on the basis of an undertaking by the Home Office that it would bring people back if ultimately the policy is found to be unlawful. As I understand it, the ECHR had a legitimate concern that there was no way of ensuring that the HO could comply with that undertaking when the people concerned are in another country. So it's not as if the Supreme Court was saying that it considered this an appropriate way of dealing with our our challenges - or indeed as if the HO was putting it forward on that basis; it's still maintaining the fiction that its primary motivation is to stop exploitation by traffickers..