|
Post by Gods on Jun 14, 2022 21:13:31 GMT
Total number of passengers down to zero.
I must admit at one point I thought it might go with just one bloke from Syria with a mujahideen beard and Lizzy Truss!
Can you imagine the 2 of them rattling around in that swanky hotel complex in Rwanda waited on hand and foot!
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jun 14, 2022 21:15:06 GMT
Great news. Hopefully those protesters down south can keep up the pressure and the courts continue to rule against the government.
Fucking abhorrent policy......
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jun 14, 2022 21:27:53 GMT
Makes you proud to be British
|
|
|
Post by eddyclamp on Jun 14, 2022 21:33:18 GMT
There’s probably no fucker to load the bags on
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jun 14, 2022 21:48:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by somersetstokie on Jun 14, 2022 21:51:41 GMT
Whatever your view on the legality of the possible flights, it should be remembered that these are not British Citizens that are being extradited, but illegal immigrants that have arrived mainly with the help of exploitative criminal gangs. They should not be here. Also we are not seeking to return them to a country that they may have fled from, allegedly for fear of persecution and their life, but they are going to good standard accomodation in a country that is keen to welcome them. If we commence flights and deter some future illegal immigrants, then we should accept the forced extradition as necessary. Many migrants could seek protection or asylum in France, which is their stepping off point, but for some reason Britain has always been seen as a soft touch and an easy option. Not any more.
|
|
|
Post by svengaliinplatforms on Jun 14, 2022 21:52:54 GMT
Whatever your view on the legality of the possible flights, it should be remembered that these are not British Citizens that are being extradited, but illegal immigrants that have arrived mainly with the help of exploitative criminal gangs. They should not be here. Also we are not seeking to return them to a country that they may have fled from, allegedly for fear of persecution and their life, but they are going to good standard accomodation in a country that is keen to welcome them. If we commence flights and deter some future illegal immigrants, then we should accept the forced extradition as necessary. Many migrants could seek protection or asylum in France, which is their stepping off point, but for some reason Britain has always been seen as a soft touch and an easy option. Not any more. I hope you've bought your tin hat.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jun 14, 2022 21:53:21 GMT
Whatever your view on the legality of the possible flights, it should be remembered that these are not British Citizens that are being extradited, but illegal immigrants that have arrived mainly with the help of exploitative criminal gangs. They should not be here. Also we are not seeking to return them to a country that they may have fled from, allegedly for fear of persecution and their life, but they are going to good standard accomodation in a country that is keen to welcome them. If we commence flights and deter some future illegal immigrants, then we should accept the forced extradition as necessary. Many migrants could seek protection or asylum in France, which is their stepping off point, but for some reason Britain has always been seen as a soft touch and an easy option. Not any more. Hear hear!
|
|
|
Post by GrahamHyde on Jun 14, 2022 21:56:41 GMT
Thought I'd wandered into an EDL rally on Jonathan Gullis' Facebook post.
Oh and 'lefty lawyers' erm, you mean, the law? Divisive and angry as ever.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jun 14, 2022 22:09:50 GMT
Thought I'd wandered into an EDL rally on Jonathan Gullis' Facebook post. Oh and 'lefty lawyers' erm, you mean, the law? Divisive and angry as ever. He's thicker than a submarine door, if one of my kids had the misfortune of being taught by that clown I'd be devastated.........
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jun 14, 2022 22:12:32 GMT
Whatever your view on the legality of the possible flights, it should be remembered that these are not British Citizens that are being extradited, but illegal immigrants that have arrived mainly with the help of exploitative criminal gangs. They should not be here. Also we are not seeking to return them to a country that they may have fled from, allegedly for fear of persecution and their life, but they are going to good standard accomodation in a country that is keen to welcome them. If we commence flights and deter some future illegal immigrants, then we should accept the forced extradition as necessary. Many migrants could seek protection or asylum in France, which is their stepping off point, but for some reason Britain has always been seen as a soft touch and an easy option. Not any more. Hundreds of thousands do, a hell of a lot more than the UK that's for sure. Germany even more so. We're pissing money up the wall on a policy that will have zero impact on the criminal gangs that prey on these vulnerable people.........
|
|
|
Post by thewonderstuff on Jun 14, 2022 22:17:02 GMT
Thought I'd wandered into an EDL rally on Jonathan Gullis' Facebook post. Oh and 'lefty lawyers' erm, you mean, the law? Divisive and angry as ever. Lawyers 'lefty' or otherwise can't independently 'stop' things, Only the terminally thick (like Gullis) or the wilfully disingenuous (like Gullis) or the culture war cunterarti (like Gullis) state otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jun 14, 2022 22:18:53 GMT
Whatever your view on the legality of the possible flights, it should be remembered that these are not British Citizens that are being extradited, but illegal immigrants that have arrived mainly with the help of exploitative criminal gangs. They should not be here. Also we are not seeking to return them to a country that they may have fled from, allegedly for fear of persecution and their life, but they are going to good standard accomodation in a country that is keen to welcome them. If we commence flights and deter some future illegal immigrants, then we should accept the forced extradition as necessary. Many migrants could seek protection or asylum in France, which is their stepping off point, but for some reason Britain has always been seen as a soft touch and an easy option. Not any more. Hundreds of thousands do, a hell of a lot more than the UK that's for sure. Germany even more so. We're pissing money up the wall on a policy that will have zero impact on the criminal gangs that prey on these vulnerable people......... France is well over 100% larger country than the U.K. and Germany nearly 50% bigger. Not sure what the numbers are, just saying it’s likely to be a factor
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jun 14, 2022 22:21:38 GMT
Hundreds of thousands do, a hell of a lot more than the UK that's for sure. Germany even more so. We're pissing money up the wall on a policy that will have zero impact on the criminal gangs that prey on these vulnerable people......... France is well over 100% larger country than the U.K. and Germany nearly 50% bigger. Not sure what the numbers are, just saying it’s likely to be a factor Germany has roughly 9 times more asylum seekers than the UK. Over 1.2m........
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jun 14, 2022 22:25:42 GMT
Whatever your view on the legality of the possible flights, it should be remembered that these are not British Citizens that are being extradited, but illegal immigrants that have arrived mainly with the help of exploitative criminal gangs. They should not be here. Also we are not seeking to return them to a country that they may have fled from, allegedly for fear of persecution and their life, but they are going to good standard accomodation in a country that is keen to welcome them. If we commence flights and deter some future illegal immigrants, then we should accept the forced extradition as necessary. Many migrants could seek protection or asylum in France, which is their stepping off point, but for some reason Britain has always been seen as a soft touch and an easy option. Not any more. I think it's 3 things that make the UK more attractive than France to some, and I repeat, some people 1.English Language 2.Relations or friends here already 3.An unregulated labour market making work much easier to get.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jun 14, 2022 22:37:01 GMT
Whatever your view on the legality of the possible flights, it should be remembered that these are not British Citizens that are being extradited, but illegal immigrants that have arrived mainly with the help of exploitative criminal gangs. They should not be here. Also we are not seeking to return them to a country that they may have fled from, allegedly for fear of persecution and their life, but they are going to good standard accomodation in a country that is keen to welcome them. If we commence flights and deter some future illegal immigrants, then we should accept the forced extradition as necessary. Many migrants could seek protection or asylum in France, which is their stepping off point, but for some reason Britain has always been seen as a soft touch and an easy option. Not any more. Suck total ignorence being displayed by you and all that agree with you They are not illegal immigrants they are Asylum Seekers under International Law until such time as their status has been determined If the Home Office spent more time in the speedy determination of the Asylum Seekers applications rather than people being stuck in Limbo for years When the Home Office finally gets off its arse and processes applications more than 75% are found to be granted as genuine A complaint is often made that the minority not entitled to Refugee Status deliberately destroy their documentation making it impossible to return them to original country I'll give them a Fucking Solution, if someone fails to fully cooperate with the Asylum Application Process I would hold them indefinitely in detention until such time as they do rather than Fucking Everyone off to Rwanda without even reviewing their application
|
|
|
Post by somersetstokie on Jun 14, 2022 22:37:27 GMT
If I was actually seeking to be provocative and antagonise people, I would say that it is a pity that we no longer have any colonies to deport people to! It is just my opinion that the planned Rwanda flights are a genuine and workable attempt to solve a real and serious problem. I have not seen any other realistic suggested options to resolve the issues, apart from trying to intercept migrant boats in the channel and turn them around to go back to France. The French could probably stop the human traffic fairly easily if they made an effort, but they apparently do not want to.
|
|
|
Post by somersetstokie on Jun 14, 2022 22:43:56 GMT
Whatever your view on the legality of the possible flights, it should be remembered that these are not British Citizens that are being extradited, but illegal immigrants that have arrived mainly with the help of exploitative criminal gangs. They should not be here. Also we are not seeking to return them to a country that they may have fled from, allegedly for fear of persecution and their life, but they are going to good standard accomodation in a country that is keen to welcome them. If we commence flights and deter some future illegal immigrants, then we should accept the forced extradition as necessary. Many migrants could seek protection or asylum in France, which is their stepping off point, but for some reason Britain has always been seen as a soft touch and an easy option. Not any more. Suck total ignorence being displayed by you and all that agree with you They are not illegal immigrants they are Asylum Seekers under International Law until such time as their status has been determined If the Home Office spent more time in the speedy determination of the Asylum Seekers applications rather than people being stuck in Limbo for years When the Home Office finally gets off its arse and processes applications more than 75% are found to be granted as genuine A complaint is often made that the minority not entitled to Refugee Status deliberately destroy their documentation making it impossible to return them to original country I'll give them a Fucking Solution, if someone fails to fully cooperate with the Asylum Application Process I would hold them indefinitely in detention until such time as they do rather than Fucking Everyone off to Rwanda without even reviewing their application As we all know, if the migrants wish to be regarded as "Asylum Seekers under International Law", then that International Law requires that they seek asylum in the first safe country that they arrive in. There is no suggestion that they should seek to choose their final destination.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jun 14, 2022 22:50:57 GMT
Suck total ignorence being displayed by you and all that agree with you They are not illegal immigrants they are Asylum Seekers under International Law until such time as their status has been determined If the Home Office spent more time in the speedy determination of the Asylum Seekers applications rather than people being stuck in Limbo for years When the Home Office finally gets off its arse and processes applications more than 75% are found to be granted as genuine A complaint is often made that the minority not entitled to Refugee Status deliberately destroy their documentation making it impossible to return them to original country I'll give them a Fucking Solution, if someone fails to fully cooperate with the Asylum Application Process I would hold them indefinitely in detention until such time as they do rather than Fucking Everyone off to Rwanda without even reviewing their application As we all know, if the migrants wish to be regarded as "Asylum Seekers under International Law", then that International Law demands that they seek asylum in the first safe country that they arrive in. There is no suggestion that they should seek to choose their final destination. This simply isn't true........
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jun 14, 2022 22:54:17 GMT
If I was actually seeking to be provocative and antagonise people, I would say that it is a pity that we no longer have any colonies to deport people to! It is just my opinion that the planned Rwanda flights are a genuine and workable attempt to solve a real and serious problem. I have not seen any other realistic suggested options to resolve the issues, apart from trying to intercept migrant boats in the channel and turn then round to go back to France. The French could probably stop the human traffic fairly easily if they made an effort, but they apparently do not want to. Don't worry you have been plenty provocative in this and your previous post Did it ever occur to you as God's pointed out above that knowledge of English might be a pull factor. How do you think that came about ? Did we create our own problems Never mind our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan Please do not go from the sublime to the ridiculous the British Navy refused to be part of another one of Pretty Awfuls turning back boats.When all else fails Blame the French Jesus Christ
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jun 14, 2022 22:56:35 GMT
If I was actually seeking to be provocative and antagonise people, I would say that it is a pity that we no longer have any colonies to deport people to! It is just my opinion that the planned Rwanda flights are a genuine and workable attempt to solve a real and serious problem. I have not seen any other realistic suggested options to resolve the issues, apart from trying to intercept migrant boats in the channel and turn them around to go back to France. The French could probably stop the human traffic fairly easily if they made an effort, but they apparently do not want to. Have a number of processing centres placed strategically to allow people to apply for asylum whilst remaining in a safe environment. Over 90% come from 10 countries and the routes these people take are all well known. It's no different to the VISA processing centres set up for citizens of Ukraine in practice......
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jun 14, 2022 22:57:18 GMT
Suck total ignorence being displayed by you and all that agree with you They are not illegal immigrants they are Asylum Seekers under International Law until such time as their status has been determined If the Home Office spent more time in the speedy determination of the Asylum Seekers applications rather than people being stuck in Limbo for years When the Home Office finally gets off its arse and processes applications more than 75% are found to be granted as genuine A complaint is often made that the minority not entitled to Refugee Status deliberately destroy their documentation making it impossible to return them to original country I'll give them a Fucking Solution, if someone fails to fully cooperate with the Asylum Application Process I would hold them indefinitely in detention until such time as they do rather than Fucking Everyone off to Rwanda without even reviewing their application As we all know, if the migrants wish to be regarded as "Asylum Seekers under International Law", then that International Law demands that they seek asylum in the first safe country that they arrive in. There is no suggestion that they should seek to choose their final destination. Pressed wrong buttons in my anger You really need to educate yourself before making incorrect statements.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jun 14, 2022 22:57:45 GMT
Suck total ignorence being displayed by you and all that agree with you They are not illegal immigrants they are Asylum Seekers under International Law until such time as their status has been determined If the Home Office spent more time in the speedy determination of the Asylum Seekers applications rather than people being stuck in Limbo for years When the Home Office finally gets off its arse and processes applications more than 75% are found to be granted as genuine A complaint is often made that the minority not entitled to Refugee Status deliberately destroy their documentation making it impossible to return them to original country I'll give them a Fucking Solution, if someone fails to fully cooperate with the Asylum Application Process I would hold them indefinitely in detention until such time as they do rather than Fucking Everyone off to Rwanda without even reviewing their application As we all know, if the migrants wish to be regarded as "Asylum Seekers under International Law", then that International Law demands that they seek asylum in the first safe country that they arrive in. There is no suggestion that they should seek to choose their final destination. "Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another. There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive." www.amnesty.org.uk/truth-about-refugees
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jun 14, 2022 23:16:38 GMT
If I was actually seeking to be provocative and antagonise people, I would say that it is a pity that we no longer have any colonies to deport people to! It is just my opinion that the planned Rwanda flights are a genuine and workable attempt to solve a real and serious problem. I have not seen any other realistic suggested options to resolve the issues, apart from trying to intercept migrant boats in the channel and turn them around to go back to France. The French could probably stop the human traffic fairly easily if they made an effort, but they apparently do not want to. For sure the French have no interest in stopping folks hopping on a dinghi and crossing the channel. Everyone who does is 1 less person they have to worry about.
|
|
|
Post by somersetstokie on Jun 14, 2022 23:22:17 GMT
Perhaps I was misinformed or misunderstood the specifics of the International legalities. Paul may be right, but I find it interesting that he references a 70 year old "1951 Refugee Convention" to justify the free movement of migrants. Maybe the time is due when such conventions should be reviewed or reinterpreted in the light of growing 21st century problems.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jun 14, 2022 23:32:19 GMT
Perhaps I was misinformed or misunderstood the specifics of the International legalities. Paul may be right, but I find it interesting that he references a 70 year old "1951 Refugee Convention" to justify the free movement of migrants. Maybe the time is due when such conventions should be reviewed or reinterpreted in the light of growing 21st century problems. A refugee is a refugee, be that one in the middle of the last century, or one in this century. The UK was one of the principal architects and (most importantly) one of the leading advocates at the time, encouraging other nations to follow our lead in providing asylum for refugees across the globe.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jun 14, 2022 23:52:36 GMT
Whatever your view on the legality of the possible flights, it should be remembered that these are not British Citizens that are being extradited, but illegal immigrants that have arrived mainly with the help of exploitative criminal gangs. They should not be here. Also we are not seeking to return them to a country that they may have fled from, allegedly for fear of persecution and their life, but they are going to good standard accomodation in a country that is keen to welcome them. If we commence flights and deter some future illegal immigrants, then we should accept the forced extradition as necessary. Many migrants could seek protection or asylum in France, which is their stepping off point, but for some reason Britain has always been seen as a soft touch and an easy option. Not any more. Well considering Britain’s rich history in colonisation ; it’s not as if we’re unfamiliar with mass illegal immigration to other countries. If anything I think we have a debt which we owe due to our ancestors and we should be doing what we can to help these people who are here to try and contribute to society and make a better life for themselves. Unfortunately the media moguls over the last couple of decades have brainwashed and convinced a vocal minority of our population that “illegal immigrants” are one of the biggest issues we as a country are facing. The funny thing is that the same people who believe the above have recently likened themselves to now being “woke” and immune to main steam media propoganda……. When it suits them. But yea Dean the reason you’re on benefirs is because Ahmed migrated here to become a GP for our struggling NHS. A job you’d be in now if it weren’t for those pesty migrants, definitely nothing to do with your DUDE grades at GCSE. And of course Dean in the above scenario is also against any tax increases especially most of all for the rich and top earners because you know he might be a millionaire one day and deserves all his earnings. Oh and he can’t vote for labour under any circumstances, especially when Jeremy Corbyn was in charge. Did you know that they’re a raving mad socialist party that want to make us like China? Oh by the way the government also really need to sort out the NHS and social housing. Could do with an increase in my benefits due to all this inflation. While we’re at it, it would be great if the government could give us some money to help with all these energy bill increases. Oh but remember we can’t vote for left wing parties because left wing means socialist and socialist is bad. But benefits, social housing, nhs and handouts is fine, that’s not socialism… Some people are absolute weapons like.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jun 14, 2022 23:59:10 GMT
If they want to send people to Rwanda. How about let us keep the migrants who are here to work and have no criminal record.
And instead we send our own criminals and those who don’t want to work to Rwanda in a swap deal.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jun 15, 2022 1:14:22 GMT
Perhaps I was misinformed or misunderstood the specifics of the International legalities. Paul may be right, but I find it interesting that he references a 70 year old "1951 Refugee Convention" to justify the free movement of migrants. Maybe the time is due when such conventions should be reviewed or reinterpreted in the light of growing 21st century problems. I honestly can't decide whether you are a WUM or just tragically ignorant The Council of Europe spearheaded by Winston Churchill was established in 1949 in the wake of WW2 to uphold human rights, democracy and the rule of Law in Europe
These principles do not alter with time The Council of Europe by Treaty in 1951 created the ECHR At present within Europe only 3 countries Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia are suspended/outside the Council of Europe/ ECHR because their Government practices are not compatible with its rules If you belive like Boris that UK should opt out and become a pariah state then I respectfully disagree
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jun 15, 2022 5:59:37 GMT
All these for and against arguments aren't really getting us anywhere. It's obvious we can't expect France to unfairly take in all refugees just because they're closer. Unless of course people are willing to fund them for it.
So maybe instead of going around in circles, we should come up with actual alternative solutions, for which I haven't seen any yet.
|
|