Rwanda

Every country in Europe is signed up although Russia was recently expelled from the ECHR because of its behaviour in Ukraine.

Its a nasty dictatorship so torture and death are not off limits

Sounds like a description of the USA and Guantanamo Bay, Whitewavemark2

Something for you to chew on

Lee Anderson MP

Waking Up To This ?

There will be a small section of society including lefty lawyers, Labour MPs and greedy over paid Human Rights charity executives who are sniggering right now over this judgement.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) prevented the flight from departing, after efforts in U.K. courts were exhausted.

The ECHR’s role in U.K. law needs looking at urgently!

I am meeting the Home Affairs Policy Committee today to see where we go from here.

Personally I would ignore the ruling and send the flights based on the decisions made by our own courts.

This is effectively a war now between right and wrong. I know in my heart of hearts I am on the right side of the argument here and this is a fight we must win.

Time to scrap the ECHR completely.

#gutted
#furious
#readyforthebattle
#wemustwin

Urmstongran

I get what you’re all saying about the ECHR but my main point was, why do we bother with a Supreme Court here then if it’s not supreme? Seems little point in it really if there’s another court of appeal up the road. Just keep going lawyers (at great cost to the taxpayers will this ever end?) till you get what you want comes to mind.

The ECHR was set up in order to protect citizens from the extremes of government.

It is only used by citizens in extremis. The point of it is that it sits outside of any signature country. Lawyers and governments have been involved in making the law by which it sits and judges its cases.

Whitewavemark2

GrannyGravy13

Surely if according to Human Rights Lawyers/Laws/Courts (just in case I missed someone out) it has been found to be illegal to fly refugees to Rwanda surely it’s illegal for Rwanda to fly refugees in need of care (as they have been described) to the U.K.

The Rwanda - U.K. -Rwanda agreement should be bilaterally over.

They are not a signatory to any HRA ???

It is a nasty dictatorship so torture and death are not off limits.

Rwanda signed an agreement with U.K. to swop humans that agreement has been found to be illegal, end of agreement.

Time to leave the ECHR that's what MPs are saying and I agree. The Supreme Court rules in the UK.

Urmstongran

I get what you’re all saying about the ECHR but my main point was, why do we bother with a Supreme Court here then if it’s not supreme? Seems little point in it really if there’s another court of appeal up the road. Just keep going lawyers (at great cost to the taxpayers will this ever end?) till you get what you want comes to mind.

I think it sends out a message that no Country is an Island where Human Rights are concerned, unless of course it’s Russia, North Korea, China, some African States etc who have no regard for life, limb or whatever anyone else thinks.

GrannyGravy13

Surely if according to Human Rights Lawyers/Laws/Courts (just in case I missed someone out) it has been found to be illegal to fly refugees to Rwanda surely it’s illegal for Rwanda to fly refugees in need of care (as they have been described) to the U.K.

The Rwanda - U.K. -Rwanda agreement should be bilaterally over.

They are not a signatory to any HRA ???

It is a nasty dictatorship so torture and death are not off limits.

GrannyGravy13

Surely if according to Human Rights Lawyers/Laws/Courts (just in case I missed someone out) it has been found to be illegal to fly refugees to Rwanda surely it’s illegal for Rwanda to fly refugees in need of care (as they have been described) to the U.K.

The Rwanda - U.K. -Rwanda agreement should be bilaterally over.

We have a PM and Home Secretary that don’t adhere to either domestic or international law.

I get what you’re all saying about the ECHR but my main point was, why do we bother with a Supreme Court here then if it’s not supreme? Seems little point in it really if there’s another court of appeal up the road. Just keep going lawyers (at great cost to the taxpayers will this ever end?) till you get what you want comes to mind.

Surely if according to Human Rights Lawyers/Laws/Courts (just in case I missed someone out) it has been found to be illegal to fly refugees to Rwanda surely it’s illegal for Rwanda to fly refugees in need of care (as they have been described) to the U.K.

The Rwanda - U.K. -Rwanda agreement should be bilaterally over.

Urmstongran

What's the point of a Supreme Court that is evidently not supreme?

This is beyond embarrassing for the government.

Perhaps you think Churchill got it wrong when we set up the European Court of Human Rights Urmstongran. You usually think that no one has the right to judge this government if I remember rightly - although I could have misunderstood.

As the UCHR was set up to work for individuals against extremes such as fascism, I would rather like to keep the UK's membership of it, particularly when I review current times.

Germanshepherdsmum

I had no idea that we were taking vulnerable Rwandans, in need of care, in exchange. Is that definitely the case?

Yes Patel has signed up to it.n

I had no idea that we were taking vulnerable Rwandans, in need of care, in exchange. Is that definitely the case?

B****y autocorrect. Sorry, Whitewave.
(It just changed it again, but at least I noticed this time!)

Whitewavemark2

Another Brexit benefit.

That is why the numbers have risen so much. We no longer cooperate with France. It simply shows how much France was previously preventing many asylum seekers from coming across the channel.

My thoughts exactly, Whitehaven.

BTW, those who insist on referring to all migrants crossing the channel in small boats as 'illegal immigrants' might do well to read the first section of that report.

Another Brexit benefit.

That is why the numbers have risen so much. We no longer cooperate with France. It simply shows how much France was previously preventing many asylum seekers from coming across the channel.

When I read this, I thought, 'oh, the irony'!

Before Brexit, the UK was part of the Dublin III regulation arrangements. This had previously enabled the UK to return some asylum seekers to EU member states without considering their asylum claims.
lordslibrary.parliament.uk/migrants-arriving-in-the-uk-by-boat/

I assume we signed a contract with the Rwanda dictatorship?

So now I suppose we must keep to our part of the bargain and welcome 60+ vulnerable asylum seekers from Rwanda.

Anyone seen the whizzy hotel that we are going to keep them in with restaurants in-house shop and gym similar to what our exported trafficked humans are going to enjoy in Rwanda?

I read something about him not long ago but buggered if I can remember what it was about.

Wasn't Johnson's grandfather involved in the ECHR?

Just so that anyone gets their knickers in a twist over Brexit etc.

“The ECHR is NOT an EU court. It's a fully independent court which was set up after WWII - by the British with British lawyers and judges at Winston Churchill's behest to protect citizens from cruel and inhumane treatments by despotic governments within continental Europe.”

Johnson wants the U.K. to be the second country to pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights. The other country is Russia and they did this because of the Ukraine war. Doesn't this make you proud to be British?

As the European Court of Human Rights has just ruled.

There is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker.

Of course the government knows this, but like every toddler is intent on pushing the boundaries.

It is time that the adults in the country took charge.