Rwanda

GrannyGravy13

Urmstongran

I’m now of the view, nothing can be done, it’s too late.

Round up the people traffickers, set up officials outposts for people to apply for asylum, allow them to become working tax payers in their new home countries.

That way they become contributors as opposed to relying on handouts.

That sounds far too sensible! It wouldn't win many votes.

I think this thread is a prime example of what a hot potato refugees are becoming.

Urmstongran

Fancy taking on the Home Secretary job GG13? Your idea could just work. But my worry would be a total ‘open door’ policy. Maybe I’m too worried about the migrants as, although it’s only a tiny minority, some migrants do wish us harm in the West.

A tiny minority of people walking down your street now wish you (or somebody else) harm.

DaisyAnne

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.

Apparently, the only country which has left the ECHR is Russia after it invaded Ukraine (and Greece very briefly when the generals took over). Do we really want to be in such company?

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.

Because the ECHR was set up as a last resort for rogue states, as a result of what happened in Nazi Germany and, to some extent, Stalin's Russia. Both Germany and Russia's supreme courts ruled they were doing nothing wrong.

growstuff

Urmstongran

Fancy taking on the Home Secretary job GG13? Your idea could just work. But my worry would be a total ‘open door’ policy. Maybe I’m too worried about the migrants as, although it’s only a tiny minority, some migrants do wish us harm in the West.

A tiny minority of people walking down your street now wish you (or somebody else) harm.

I do think that the thought of a terror attack is uppermost in a proportion of the population, people in Manchester, London or anywhere else where there has been a major attack will be that little bit more on their guard

I have been too close for comfort to several IRA bombs in London, I will never use the underground as a friend was on the train that was bombed, it’s just human nature.

The lack of empathy for other human beings shown by some posters is utterly depressing. We only live in a safe country such as ours by accident of birth.
There is an interesting discussion to be had, but views are so entrenched it seems impossible by any rational argument and evidence, to engage.

For those interested there is a thought provoking article in The Conversation How the UK’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is 21st century Imperialism writ large.
Very interesting. Pity we never learn from past mistakes.

Hi all,
Thanks to those who have reported their concerns about this thread. We have deleted several posts by various posters, and would request that this thread might return to the subject in hand rather than the pursual of personal enmities.

HopeGN

Hi all,
Thanks to those who have reported their concerns about this thread. We have deleted several posts by various posters, and would request that this thread might return to the subject in hand rather than the pursual of personal enmities.

Why aren't you in pink HopeGN? GN posts usually are. Have we had a revamp?

And the word you're looking for is 'pursuit'.

Do you patrol the threads regularly looking for posters to tell off for breaking your posting rules?

No MaizieD. I don’t. I have far more interesting and enjoyable things to do and the ‘posting rules’ are decided by GNHQ as I’m sure you know. Looks like they’ve deleted it so they didn’t like it either

Farzanah

The lack of empathy for other human beings shown by some posters is utterly depressing. We only live in a safe country such as ours by accident of birth.
There is an interesting discussion to be had, but views are so entrenched it seems impossible by any rational argument and evidence, to engage.

For those interested there is a thought provoking article in The Conversation How the UK’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is 21st century Imperialism writ large.
Very interesting. Pity we never learn from past mistakes.

Thanks to those posting from a position of common decency and compassion
Some of the comments about refugees and posters seen to be lefties and therefore stupid - make me despair. It’s a dreadful reminder why we have the current government

tickingbird

^Do you patrol the threads regularly looking for posters to tell off for breaking your posting rules?^

No MaizieD. I don’t. I have far more interesting and enjoyable things to do and the ‘posting rules’ are decided by GNHQ as I’m sure you know. Looks like they’ve deleted it so they didn’t like it either

Yes...

you might want to just have a check to see what's been deleted.

Not that I have any right to tell people what to do, of course

Maudi

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

Not all mp's Maudi. Just the shouty ones pandering to certain sectors of the electorate. I had you down as a Churchill fan like your mate Johnson.

Iam64

Farzanah

The lack of empathy for other human beings shown by some posters is utterly depressing. We only live in a safe country such as ours by accident of birth.
There is an interesting discussion to be had, but views are so entrenched it seems impossible by any rational argument and evidence, to engage.

For those interested there is a thought provoking article in The Conversation How the UK’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is 21st century Imperialism writ large.
Very interesting. Pity we never learn from past mistakes.

Thanks to those posting from a position of common decency and compassion
Some of the comments about refugees and posters seen to be lefties and therefore stupid - make me despair. It’s a dreadful reminder why we have the current government

I agree Iam64. Sometimes it’s amusing to be lumped together as the lefties, but decent people of all backgrounds and political leanings are against the deportations, and a number have expressed their views on this thread. It’s the extremism by the right that scares me.

Maudi

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

If I remember right after the Supreme Court ruled against Johnson’s attempt to prorogue parliament I read that he wanted to curtail the powers of the Supreme Court. Which means we’d be moving even closer to being a dictatorship.

Patel is an evil witch! How inhuman to send people to a country that is full of unrest when they have just come from war torn lands. I hate the woman - she is a bloody robot!

I just want to point out that GG13’s proposals, accepted as a good idea by Urmstongran are what the left have been proposing for many years.

Curlywhirly

I know Callistemon - what's the point of sending our asylum seekers/refugees to Rwanda, if we are going to accept Rwandans in return? And, ones that need care and are vulnerable to boot? Just how in God's name is this seen as a solution to our immigration problems?
Beggars belief!

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear - I thought perhaps that all asylum seekers might just be vulnerable and need care.

It seemed ironic to me that vulnerable people are being sent to another country in exchange for their vulnerable people coming here.

That was why I thought I was missing something vital.
Perhaps my mind doesn't work like the government's?

This is what provides protection to each individual from a rogue government.

Never make the mistake that what the government says is it’s interest is the same as yours.

Perhaps my mind doesn't work like the government's?

Probably a good thing that it doesn't, Callistemon as the government's mind seems to only focus on dog whistle populism and destroying the constitution so as to gain unbridled power.

I don't have you down as being a megalomaniac

Everyone has a right to access the law. Even a murderer of the worse kind is defended.

Johnson’s attack on the lawyers defending the asylum seekers is populism of the worse kind.

“The Bar Council and Law Society of England and Wales together call on the Prime Minister to stop attacks on legal professionals who are simply doing their jobs."

GrannyGravy13

Urmstongran

I’m now of the view, nothing can be done, it’s too late.

Round up the people traffickers, set up officials outposts for people to apply for asylum, allow them to become working tax payers in their new home countries.

That way they become contributors as opposed to relying on handouts.

The money they propose spending on sending asylum seekers to Rwanda would go some way to achieving this.

growstuff

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.

Because the ECHR was set up as a last resort for rogue states, as a result of what happened in Nazi Germany and, to some extent, Stalin's Russia. Both Germany and Russia's supreme courts ruled they were doing nothing wrong.

The Supreme Court here deals with civil and criminal appeal cases in the UK where previously these appeals were dealt with by the House of Lords.

The ECHR is a court dealing with cases of human rights, ensuring the European Convention on Human Rights is adhered to.
Its task is to ensure that States respect the rights and guarantees set out in the Convention.

?

“Remember when Priti Patel got sacked for having secret meetings with the Israeli government… would you like to take a guess which other country has been deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda?”

growstuff

DaisyAnne

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.

Apparently, the only country which has left the ECHR is Russia after it invaded Ukraine (and Greece very briefly when the generals took over). Do we really want to be in such company?

Russia didn't leave, they were chucked out. Is that what this Tory government would see as a success?