What chartered flights? Even the Rwanda airline wants nothing to do with this.
Where are all the extra judges suddenly come from? Are you pulling then off other cases like rape and murder?
No interference from Foreign courts. They’re not foreign, it’s the European court of which we, the UK, are a member.
Labour keeps voting against the bill! Yes, they do but you have the majority in the house of commons and the Lords. It’s the Tory lords voting against this bill because they have the sense to realise how batshit this legislation is.
Rant over.
What chartered flights? Even the Rwanda airline wants nothing to do with this.
Given the enormous cost per person and the low numbers of people they are shifting, I am sure they could find an old school chum with a spare private jet lying about that they can hire out for an exorbitant fee.
I’m actually quite surprised that this hasn’t happened and that they’re going with commercial airlines. I wonder if even party donors are reluctant to get involved.
Or that it needs to be dragged out so they can say “It’s so sad no commercial company will do it, guess we’ll just have to use my wife’s jet at a 300% markup…”
One should never miss the chance to create a new gravy train.
I do think that it is fascinating that the only Tories with any kind of morals, and let’s be honest any brains, are the unelected ones.
The tory party used to be much further left than they are currently, More centre right, and many of those ex MPs are voting against this nonsense.
Once they’re in the lords they needn’t fear the whip and so don’t need to toe the more stupid party lines.
Oh right so has he found an airline to take them then?
Jesus Christ what an absolute idiot we have as a prime minister. Why does he insist on this policy, literally no one likes it. It is unpopular with everyone other than the hardline right, why can these absolute morons not see that he is repeatedly shooting himself in the foot by even talking about this.
Corrupt government is one thing but incompetent is quite another. I could almost respect a corrupt but competent prime minister.
My guess is they know they are out in the next election, so they are getting the last few policies they’ve already been paid for out there.
Lol no and he knows it.
Goddamn charlatan, wasting money for the sake of it, along with the rest of his party.
Empty flights from a military base with no press allowed, guaranteed.
I’d quite like a government that doesn’t make me ashamed to be British.
In the meantime, does anyone know of any legal funds I can donate to that will help the people being targeted by this inhumane policy?
I donate monthly to The Good Law Project
How is it inhumane? Isn’t it for the small-boat lot?
It’s inhumane because even people who have legitimate claims will be deported to Rwanda against their wills, and will never be allowed to have those legitimate claims reveiwed.
Would these people be coming from france in a small boat? If so, what would be a legitimate claim?
Oh God you’re one of those. Their claim is that they don’t want to live in France, because let’s face it who would.
They’re allowed to claim in whatever country they want just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it illegal.
Yes. It’s obvious what you’re trying to build up to with your faux-naive questions, but your second question is irrelevant. Doing something illegal does not waive your human rights, and the right to asylum is a human right. The UK cannot legitimately deport asylum seekers to Rwanda without assessing their claims. Violating someone’s human rights is inhumane.
I don’t think you have that right though if you’re coming from a safe country. “Fleeing” from France to the UK by paying criminal gangs to smuggle you into the country on dangerous boats which has been known to cause death, almost always for economic or sinister intentions isn’t the same as fleeing the likes of Sudan for Italy via Mediterranean or any other warring country for a safe one.
Whatever you think about it, they do have that right. Most people who currently arrive in small boats have their claims recognised as legitimate under UK law. This also means that your characterisation of them as having economic or sinister intentions is a lie.
They’re not safe in France because France’s asylum system is also in very poor shape. They are mostly people living in temporary camps, unable to find work and relying on charity. This is not the same thing at all, obviously, as most French people living in France, and is not safe for them. Furthermore, there is no compulsion for refugees to stay in the first ‘safe’ country they reach, although in fact most do.
Even if everything I said above was false (which it isn’t), the British government could afford to fix the problem far more cheaply by investing in processing the claims more quickly. Processing asylum claims quickly would remove the incentive to pay people smugglers and thus break their business model. Instead, the government is spending huge sums of money - more than would be required to process those claims - on this policy. Even if it does work, it will be more expensive than just processing the claims, quickly.
@frankPodmore @Flax_vert
Your point about France isn’t quite right. France accepts way more refugees than the UK and those accepted are looked after.
However, many more refugees pass through France and it’s these people who are treated appallingly, beaten by the police, frequently having tents and possessions removed.Australia did the same thing and it worked, simply sending them back.
You can “think” what you like. international law disagrees with you
“isn’t it for the small-boat lot” you literally use this phrasing to dehumanize the people that you’re arguing are not being treated inhumanely
Is there anyway of making money when this eventually does Not happen?
You likely won’t get good odds from a bookie unless they suspect the government will get one or two there by hook or by crook.
Piers M*rgan seems to have a way
This cunt never had a mandate and needs to call an election now.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The first flights deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda will take off in 10 to 12 weeks Rishi Sunak has announced - missing his original spring target.
Last week, peers demanded two changes to the bill - for an independent monitoring committee to be put in place and for exemptions for Afghans who’d assisted the British military.
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said: "No amount of soundbites or spin can change the fact that the Conservatives’ Rwanda scheme is a colossal failure.
This ping pong between the two Houses of Parliament could go on until either the government concedes and makes concessions, or peers give up on their suggested amendments - a process which could go on until late into the night.
Effectively, the legislation would drastically limit the grounds for legal challenges to the Rwanda scheme and it gives ministers the power to disregard some human rights law.
The scheme was first introduced on 14 April 2022 by then-prime minister Boris Johnson, but no asylum seeker has yet been sent to Rwanda - a landlocked country in central Africa - 4,000 miles (6,500km) from the UK.
The original article contains 1,008 words, the summary contains 187 words. Saved 81%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
He’s a tiny cunt and he’ll be gone in a few months.
Election in 11 weeks then, it seems!
Back in the House of Lords later on Monday evening, peers decided to drop the demand on Afghan veterans [getting an excemption]
This is what you get for serving the empire. It will chew you up and spit you out.
