To think that white British/ American etcmen are just as much a threat to women as migrants?

[malificent7]

I am not excusing grooming, paedophile sex rings and unmonitored immigration at all but I hate all these protests.
I know that my white male ex teacher is a sex offender. Not to mention the Epstein scandal.
Aibu to think that ALL men are a danger to women...not just men of different ethnicities/ religions etc?

Interesting. So ‘you won’t stay’ has been seen as an entirely empty threat.

Starmer can’t really up the ante from that.

It did start, they sent 4 people to Rwanda. The yearly capacity of the 700m scheme was 200 which was 0.7% of small boat arrivals.

I have no idea why you're using the current Trump administration as any kind of example unless you don't believe in acting within the law.

A shame Labour don’t understand how deterrents work, going by their latest hardline SM activity. It’s not that. People really are more clued up than the PM.

I have yet to see any other proposals that have any hope at all of reducing the crossings.

The consequences of Starmer's decision to scrap Rwanda will most likely cost Labour the next election. Fine by me. I hope it's worth it for those so vehemently against it.

James Cleverly has said many times that the purpose of sending a small number of people to Rwanda was to prove to the courts that it was safe, due to the barage of HR lawyers trying to stop it. I'm sure those same lawyers are making lots of money from Starmer's 'smash the gangs' as numbers are rising.

Yes they can try to hide some of the other stuff eg the £50bn down but it’ll be scrapping this that’ll cost them at a GE.

They know because the world over men are supported when they rape. Every country is the same. Men know that they can get away with it everywhere hence why it is so common. Rapists the world over falsely accuse their victims, that is nothing new.

Afghanistan males would likely be mentioned due to the current report of two men who were arrested for this crime. Yes most people will be vague as most countries do have rape laws but sadly almost all rape laws the world over support the perpetrator and not the victim.

We have places like France where consent doesn't even feature in their rape laws and in the USA there are some rape laws that mean that if she says no then he can rape with the backing of the law if he doesn't include violence.

So the world over supports rapists - not just the countries where there are brown skinned perpetrators. It is where there are penises.

Here we have virtually 0 chance of getting rapists brought to justice. Even if you film it or he confesses, he will be let off.

The Rwanda scheme was found to be against international law as Rwanda has a history of deporting asylum seekers to countries where they are in danger or at risk of persecution. This is the principle of non refoulement.

I understand that some don't believe in human rights but fortunately the government and courts do. It's why Trump is happily refusing people seeking asylum and sending people to prisons surrounded by alligators and notorious SA prisons. Although you seem in favour of Trump's style of politics, luckily the UK hasn't quite descended to those levels.

Hopefully humane strategies can be found.

People have said it’s causing an issue, that’s why I’ve said “if it will help” I’m not a human rights lawyer

It's a smoke screen in the same way the EU was a smokescreen. We don't want to leave the ECHR because of a tiny amount of judgements. We're also signaturies to various international treaties such as the Refugee Convention, so it won't make a difference.

Of course they aren’t there is a tiny chance they might be sent back to France a much much larger chance they’ll be put up in a lovely hotel and have all their needs catered for.

The accommodation needs moving to nisen huts somewhere remote preferably offshore, we need to process much quicker and send back the vast majority to their country of origin. People need to sort out their own countries.

There you go with your pigeon-holing assumptions again.
Yes of course I'm a big supporter of Trump, that's exactly what I said isn't it 🙄.

In that case we need to leave whatever agreements are preventing us dealing effectively with the people landing on our shores.

The presumption should be people entering our country without a visa:visa waiver gets immediately deported back to their country of origin.

our energy and resources should go into helping people change their own countries so that people don’t need to flee.

They don't have all their needs catered for. They're given accommodation and £50 a week if food isn't provided, if it is they get £10. People left to starve on the streets creates more problems.

The same each time.

Lovely hotel! 🙄

a humans needs are food, water, shelter and clothing- yes they are getting their needs catered for

We have lots of people who are on the streets.

Unfortunately it's not that simple as they're claiming asylum. We have the principle of non refoulement which means that people can't be sent back to countries where they're in danger. Unless we have an authoritarian government that overrides the courts, we have to act within the law. We also need agreements with countries to send people there.

Actually yes, my son went to London on a school trip and stayed in the Canary Wharf hotel the week before the migrants moved in. It was a “lovely hotel” would you like some pictures? We have loads round here in nice hotels, totally screwed the local economy

There's a difference between getting basic needs catered for and getting all your needs catered for. I'm sure you already know that though.

So will non refoulment stop us returning prisoners also?
That's what Labour have recently announced. How will they return them?

You support Trump sending people to Rwanda:

USA have now signed a deal with Rwanda. A list of 10 migrants has been sent to Rwanda for vetting according to the Rwanda gov

Hardly a presumption.

Well that’s where we should be focusing our energy. If everyone had fled England everytime groups of people were in danger, where would our society be now?

People need to sort their own countries out. We cannot support the numbers coming here, if people do come here they need to appreciate that they need to fully integrate and understand exactly what that means

So what other “needs” should we meet. I think anything outside of basic needs is a want.

I'm afraid human rights apply across the board. Criminals can be returned to any place if they're not going to be tortured or in danger. That isn't the major flaw with the plan though.

Do I? Ok.
You are actually quite funny