This flight to Rwanda

[JamesWales]

Re: This flight to Rwanda

Gammon porn while energy companies bleed people dry.

If they have no claim to asylum then surely it's easy peasy, just send them back to Albania, or fly them to Rwanda as was your method du jour a few weeks back. Out of interest, how is the deterrent going?

The deterrent isn't going well, because left-wing lawyers have supported them in arguing against their removal.

Interesting to see you support the abuse of our system. Are you making money from it all?

Not that it has anything to do with the abuse of the asylum system but the price of energy is up because Europe is boycotting Russian gas, you plonker.

[Claude Blue]

Re: This flight to Rwanda

The deterrent isn't going well, because left-wing lawyers have supported them in arguing against their removal.

Interesting to see you support the abuse of our system. Are you making money from it all?

Not that it has anything to do with the abuse of the asylum system but the price of energy is up because Europe is boycotting Russian gas, you plonker.

Why are they "left wing" lawyers James?

Aren't they just lawyers ensuring that the law of the land is adhered to by all, including our government?

Perhaps you prefer our government behaving as it wishes without checks and balances - as long as you agree with the policy obviously.

Not quite "Mr. Nuance" are you!!

[JamesWales]

Re: This flight to Rwanda

Why are they "left wing" lawyers James?

Aren't they just lawyers ensuring that the law of the land is adhered to by all, including our government?

Perhaps you prefer our government behaving as it wishes without checks and balances - as long as you agree with the policy obviously.

Not quite "Mr. Nuance" are you!!

Because they are left-wing lawyers Claude.

The Rwanda flights were stopped by a law firm called Duncan Lewis Solicitors. This is them at a Labour event.

https://twitter.com/DuncanLewis/status/811187374042521600

I'm all for checks and balances, less so for the law being exploited by criminals and the country having to support anyone who wants to come, especially through a system designed to help the most needy, not those with the ability to afford to pay

Do you really think that 40% of the most needy in the world are Albanian people coming from France via criminal gangs? Or is there perhaps a better way? Naivity can only cover you so far here.

[Claude Blue]

Re: This flight to Rwanda

Because they are left-wing lawyers Claude.

The Rwanda flights were stopped by a law firm called Duncan Lewis Solicitors. This is them at a Labour event.

I'm all for checks and balances, less so for the law being exploited by criminals and the country having to support anyone who wants to come, especially through a system designed to help the most needy, not those with the ability to afford to pay

https://twitter.com/DuncanLewis/stat...87374042521600

So they work within the parameters of the law.

Why do you find that objectionable?

[JamesWales]

Re: This flight to Rwanda

So they work within the parameters of the law.

Why do you find that objectionable?

Because I think they are enabling and facilitating the abuse of the asylum and immigration system, enriching criminal gangs, allowing people to 'jump the queue' and creating costs to the country which has significant other priorities atm.

[Claude Blue]

Re: This flight to Rwanda

Because I think they are enabling and facilitating the abuse of the asylum and immigration system, enriching criminal gangs, allowing people to 'jump the queue' and creating costs to the country which has significant other priorities atm.

Then it's down to the government to develop policies that adhere to the laws of the land.

It's sweet FA to do with "left wing" lawyers.

If you disagree then you believe that our government should be able to act with impunity.

That's a dangerous path to go down and I suspect you know that.

[JamesWales]

Re: This flight to Rwanda

Then it's down to the government to develop policies that adhere to the laws of the land.

It's sweet FA to do with "left wing" lawyers.

If you disagree then you believe that our government should be able to act with impunity.

That's a dangerous path to go down and I suspect you know that.

I don't think the government should be able to act without impunity. I just think the law is being abused and is being used against the spirit of what asylum and immigration laws are there to do.

It's fine to question the law and legal system without wanting to undermine the whole process of checks and balances. People can criticise the famous recent decision by the supreme court in the US for example, without acknowledging that it is still a part of the process of government.

[JamesWales]

Re: This flight to Rwanda

Albanian Police to be stationed at Dover. Now I agree, this is hopefully a better deterrent than threats of flights to Rwanda.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/albanian-police-to-be-stationed-at-dover-to-identify-and-deport-illegal-channel-migrants/ar-AA114Fij

It's almost as if our processes have been exploited for some time.

[Swiss Peter]

Re: This flight to Rwanda

Then it's down to the government to develop policies that adhere to the laws of the land.

It's sweet FA to do with "left wing" lawyers.

If you disagree then you believe that our government should be able to act with impunity.

That's a dangerous path to go down and I suspect you know that.

Does the government have legal advisors that stress-test this kind of policy to assess its robustness within the parameters of law against legal scrutiny and challenge? Of course.

What would have been those advisor’s conclusions with respect to this policy? Who knows (…although we’ve seen those reports of their own advisers warnings over the unsuitability of Rwanda as a destination).

Assuming the Government took advice, did it then act upon that advice and adapt its approach to better withstand this challenge? It appears not, based upon the success of those challenges.

So maybe they knew it probably wouldn’t work, and maybe that never actually mattered very much. What mattered was the signal – the meat (lets say gammon, for arguments sake) being thrown out to the hungry pack baying for more stringent immigration controls. A cynical ploy to buy political credit/time, to be seen to be doing something, that they themselves knew probably wouldn’t work.

And they probably knew that their easily-manipulated footsoldiers, who willingly rush to defend this kind of stuff, would end up looking a bit stupid, but were more likely to blame the lawyers or the lefties rather than the ones who instigated a flawed policy in the first place.

[Swiss Peter]

Re: This flight to Rwanda

Albanian Police to be stationed at Dover. Now I agree, this is hopefully a better deterrent than threats of flights to Rwanda.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/albanian-police-to-be-stationed-at-dover-to-identify-and-deport-illegal-channel-migrants/ar-AA114Fij

It's almost as if our processes have been exploited for some time.

Yes - hopefully. Need to cooperate better with the relevant agencies across Europe to sort this. It’s a really serious problem needing serious answers - not crackpot ideas that look great in the daily express.

[Eric Cartman]

Re: This flight to Rwanda

The deterrent isn't going well, because left-wing lawyers have supported them in arguing against their removal.

Interesting to see you support the abuse of our system. Are you making money from it all?

Not that it has anything to do with the abuse of the asylum system but the price of energy is up because Europe is boycotting Russian gas, you plonker.

Really? Get help.

I told you the deterrent wouldn't work and I told you the deterrent was against international law. This shouldn't be a surprise.

[Eric Cartman]

Re: This flight to Rwanda

I don't think the government should be able to act without impunity. I just think the law is being abused and is being used against the spirit of what asylum and immigration laws are there to do.

One of the core tenets of international law around asylum is that your method of entry shouldn't affect your claim. The UK govs policy of flying illegal migrants to Rwanda directly and deliberately does this.

[Eric Cartman]

Re: This flight to Rwanda

Does the government have legal advisors that stress-test this kind of policy to assess its robustness within the parameters of law against legal scrutiny and challenge? Of course.

What would have been those advisor’s conclusions with respect to this policy? Who knows (…although we’ve seen those reports of their own advisers warnings over the unsuitability of Rwanda as a destination).

Assuming the Government took advice, did it then act upon that advice and adapt its approach to better withstand this challenge? It appears not, based upon the success of those challenges.

So maybe they knew it probably wouldn’t work, and maybe that never actually mattered very much. What mattered was the signal – the meat (lets say gammon, for arguments sake) being thrown out to the hungry pack baying for more stringent immigration controls. A cynical ploy to buy political credit/time, to be seen to be doing something, that they themselves knew probably wouldn’t work.

And they probably knew that their easily-manipulated footsoldiers, who willingly rush to defend this kind of stuff, would end up looking a bit stupid, but were more likely to blame the lawyers or the lefties rather than the ones who instigated a flawed policy in the first place.

You won't get a reply. That is why I resort to goading him, he claims to want an adult debate but the moment you eloquently trash his position he avoids responding.

[Claude Blue]

Re: This flight to Rwanda

Does the government have legal advisors that stress-test this kind of policy to assess its robustness within the parameters of law against legal scrutiny and challenge? Of course.

What would have been those advisor’s conclusions with respect to this policy? Who knows (…although we’ve seen those reports of their own advisers warnings over the unsuitability of Rwanda as a destination).

Assuming the Government took advice, did it then act upon that advice and adapt its approach to better withstand this challenge? It appears not, based upon the success of those challenges.

So maybe they knew it probably wouldn’t work, and maybe that never actually mattered very much. What mattered was the signal – the meat (lets say gammon, for arguments sake) being thrown out to the hungry pack baying for more stringent immigration controls. A cynical ploy to buy political credit/time, to be seen to be doing something, that they themselves knew probably wouldn’t work.

And they probably knew that their easily-manipulated footsoldiers, who willingly rush to defend this kind of stuff, would end up looking a bit stupid, but were more likely to blame the lawyers or the lefties rather than the ones who instigated a flawed policy in the first place.

Every word

[Dorcus]

Re: This flight to Rwanda

Every word

And it sounds a bit like their Brexit policy to me. What do we know? this Government has no substance and barely any ethics.