|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 19, 2023 13:35:15 GMT
So Lord Reed and his other numpties at the Supreme Court have decided that Rwanda is an unsuitable country to send our illegal immigrants to, "because they might return those who fail to meet asylum requirements to their country of origin" - where they might be "unsafe".
The naivety is beyond belief. It's virtually irrelevant whether these scum are accepted for asylum or not because basically NONE of them want to live in Rwanda anyway. Within weeks of them being dumped in Rwanda 90% will be on their way back to Europe/UK. The idea that those that are accepted will settle down in Rwanda or that those who are rejected will be "taken back to their country of origin" is just absurd. Rwanda has absolutely no interest in where any of these scum go - just provided they fuck off somewhere else or at least don't need accommodation on the state. Rwanda just pick up the cash for taking them and hope they disappear ASAP which they probably will. Rwanda isn't locking them up FFS.
These judges are so old that they don't understand what's going on anymore - if they ever did. The whole point of the Rwanda policy is to STOP people coming to the UK in the first place. If all the illegals who arrive her by boat are just taken to Rwanda they'll stop coming pretty quickly. Why is that so hard to understand?
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 19, 2023 14:04:35 GMT
So Lord Reed and his other numpties at the Supreme Court have decided that Rwanda is an unsuitable country to send our illegal immigrants to, "because they might return those who fail to meet asylum requirements to their country of origin" - where they might be "unsafe". The naivety is beyond belief. It's virtually irrelevant whether these scum are accepted for asylum or not because basically NONE of them want to live in Rwanda anyway. Within weeks of them being dumped in Rwanda 90% will be on their way back to Europe/UK. The idea that those that are accepted will settle down in Rwanda or that those who are rejected will be "taken back to their country of origin" is just absurd. Rwanda has absolutely no interest in where any of these scum go - just provided they fuck off somewhere else or at least don't need accommodation on the state. Rwanda just pick up the cash for taking them and hope they disappear ASAP which they probably will. Rwanda isn't locking them up FFS. These judges are so old that they don't understand what's going on anymore - if they ever did. The whole point of the Rwanda policy is to STOP people coming to the UK in the first place. If all the illegals who arrive her by boat are just taken to Rwanda they'll stop coming pretty quickly. Why is that so hard to understand? I tend to think even if the numbers are small, the asylum seekers are often not the most educated of people or they would sign on as one of our universities, hence the fear of going to Rwanda would make it preferable to say try another destination to scrounge off. You could try a psychology experiment. Get two fast food outlets next to each other and get them to sell milkshakes at exactly the same price, but the Wendy's outlet, every one in ten thousand milkshakes is made with water from the staff's toilet. How many milkshakes would each outlet sell relative to the other? |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 20, 2023 7:33:08 GMT
The point I was trying to make is that the judges have banned the govt from sending illegals to Rwanda because of, as they said, the danger that Rwanda will return those who are not granted asylum back to their country of origin. Yet Rwanda are not intending to "return" these people anywhere. They're not held in detention and are free to go where they like. Those who are rejected will simply be told to leave Rwanda. Which probably ALL of them will do anyway as they are intent on getting to Europe/UK.
Doesn't it occur to people that this makes the judges verdict nonsensical.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dubdrifter on Nov 20, 2023 8:30:44 GMT
Stupid? ….
Rwanda was a dumb idea in the first place … Repatriation is only humane if you FAST TRACK return people back to the Country of their indigenous tribal origin … or the Country whose border they crossed to get into yours.
These boats and immigrants should be picked up as soon as they are detected leaving French beaches … and returned to French ports …. around the clock … 24/7 365 and never allowed to put one step on UK land.
THEY HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHTS HERE … and immigrants in our Legal/Law Enforcement Services have no right to give them any … and must themselves be INSTANTLY REMOVED.
We need to vote in politicians that will shut down this forced immigration programme being promoted mainly by the Zionist-controlled MSM and other Religious bullies out to damage the security and economy of the UK.
FRANCE and the EU are also engaged using immigrants to DELIBERATELY damage our UK economy, security and stability ~ by failure to secure EU borders ….. allowing migrants free/subsidised passage through Europe to illegally enter our United Kingdom.
RN MILITARY FORCES should be at home protecting our shores instead of being in the Med threatening Gaza and in the Baltic threatening Russia. … ie. employed working for Zionist Nazi expansionist interests.
The EU and Israel Agenda is deliberately letting in migrants, shipping in migrants, creating migrants through their Nazi NATO expansionist POGROMS.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 20, 2023 9:25:31 GMT
I agree with most of what you say DD. The only thing I'd add is that the Rwanda policy was never meant to be a long term policy. It's based on the Australian policy of taking any illegals straight to Papua New Guinea. It was never going to work in the long term because Papua New Guinea would object. What it did was send a message that you can't get to Australia by boat. It stopped the problem COMPLETELY within weeks. Rwanda would do the same for us if our politicians had just ignored judicial complaints - by the time any litigation had started the problem would be over.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 20, 2023 12:01:56 GMT
Arguably not quite as stupid as our political 'leaders' who recklessly gambled that the courts would approve their madcap scheme.
|
|
|
|
Post by piglet on Nov 20, 2023 12:52:43 GMT
Didnt Sunak say that he will stop foreign courts deciding British issues.? The supreme court is British, we stopped being a bitch of europe a long time ago. Sunak and the rest still dont get it.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 20, 2023 12:57:29 GMT
Arguably not quite as stupid as our political 'leaders' who recklessly gambled that the courts would approve their madcap scheme. Debating the relative stupidity of our judges and our politicians would be pointless. They're useless in different ways. I think you're right that our judges would never approve the Rwanda scheme, but the reasons they've rejected it are ridiculous. And our politicians are stupid to think that it would ever get approval. Even if Blair's s Supreme Court approved it it would have faced many other legal challenges. But the govt should have brought it in as an emergency measure and just done it - regardless of legality. As I've said the point of the Rwanda scheme is not to have a long term scheme where we just funnel illegals to Rwanda - they don't have the accommodation in Rwanda to house these people anyway. It's just like the Australian scheme. The Aussies just took anyone who arrived illegally to Papua New Guinea and ignored all objections. And the whole issue was solved before any litigation took place because people stopped trying to get to Australia in boats. But none of our politicians had the balls to do it. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 20, 2023 13:06:35 GMT
Is the right answer.
But failing that, simply remove the handouts: No 4 star accomodation, no cash. No incentive.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 20, 2023 13:13:25 GMT
Is the right answer. But failing that, simply remove the handouts: No 4 star accomodation, no cash. No incentive. Like Denmark is doing - they're slashing benefits for immigrants and adopting a few other policies to reduce the pull factor. But we can't even put these people in anything other than top class hotels or the Lefties complain. In the West Country there have been protests from the local community about housing these scum on the Bibi Stockholm because it's "like a prison". A lot of homeless people would love to live there. Three meals a day, games room a Gym. FFS. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 20, 2023 13:25:03 GMT
The point I was trying to make is that the judges have banned the govt from sending illegals to Rwanda because of, as they said, the danger that Rwanda will return those who are not granted asylum back to their country of origin. Yet Rwanda are not intending to "return" these people anywhere. They're not held in detention and are free to go where they like. Those who are rejected will simply be told to leave Rwanda. Which probably ALL of them will do anyway as they are intent on getting to Europe/UK. Doesn't it occur to people that this makes the judges verdict nonsensical. The judgment probably makes perfect sense. Novices in law fail to understand what it means when we have a situation where a court gives a reason such as we can't do it because it is "unsafe/not safe". The problem here is there is a normal way we think and there is a distinct legal way as well. The normal way is to see it as meaning in the literal sense. We all know what it means to be safe. No one is likely to harm you and so on. We all have our various degrees of undemanding the word, but in law it can seem like understanding outer Mongolians.
Indeed you are probably familiar with how the courts think if you have practised maths and computer programming. Now in computer programming we might have a variable called safe. We don't understand this variable as it is a place holder. We could have used any identification of this variable just by changing the word. The program would work just as well. This is because safe is defined by another part of the program, e.g. let "safe" = 4x^3 + y - z. Often we then have to seek the definitions of x,y, z. to make matters more confusing to the layman we also have the concept of scope. Safe can mean one thing in one function and another thing in another function, or even more local scope than that, or possibly much wider scope according to how we define it. So when you get deep into law, you find it is ultimately a logical system in the same way as computer code is. Having got this point when I practised it myself I suddenly realised I already understood it well, but like many, as a novice these things can trip you up. Don't expect a blonde on GB News to help you here!
In fact this is why it probably made a lot of sense to "run the code" as per get the Supreme Court to deliberate for a year so that throws up all the bugs we are likely to encounter. I'm sure they did a good job, but the fault lies in the previous legislation, e.g. the refugee act.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dubdrifter on Nov 20, 2023 15:03:44 GMT
Novices in law fail to understand what it means when we have a situation where a court gives a reason such as we can't do it because it is "unsafe/not safe". The problem here is there is a normal way we think and there is a distinct legal way as well. The normal way is to see it as meaning in the literal sense. We all know what it means to be safe. No one is likely to harm you and so on. We all have our various degrees of undemanding the word, but in law it can seem like understanding outer Mongolians. In fact this is why it probably made a lot of sense to "run the code" as per get the Supreme Court to deliberate for a year so that throws up all the bugs we are likely to encounter. I'm sure they did a good job, but the fault lies in the previous legislation, e.g. the refugee act. The Refugee Act applies to the EU and France and the those running the EU Commission who carry liability for their actions … Free movement was not a right of anyone … Most in the World cannot walk into any Country and reside there! What nonsense. Illegal is illegal … apply the Law and Brexit border control …or quit Office … …. “Safe” is the responsibility of these Countries like France and North Africa … that let migrants be exploited, set off from their shores in bad boats and drown …The EU facilitates fast track migrant movement thru the EU, offers huge incentives and assists with broken borders and destabilisation in Ukraine, the Middle East, Africa, the Caribbean and other territories where they bully control. The French in particular facilitate traffickers and their exploitation. … It’s time for tough action and tough ‘love’ repatriation … we need Bruges Group breakaway policies … not Far Leftist extremist anarchist nonsense destabilising our Communities and putting rampaging mobs on our streets … attacking Law and Order. Strong borders foster safer communities … ask Israeli festival goers.🤔 |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 20, 2023 15:33:41 GMT
Novices in law fail to understand what it means when we have a situation where a court gives a reason such as we can't do it because it is "unsafe/not safe". The problem here is there is a normal way we think and there is a distinct legal way as well. The normal way is to see it as meaning in the literal sense. We all know what it means to be safe. No one is likely to harm you and so on. We all have our various degrees of undemanding the word, but in law it can seem like understanding outer Mongolians. In fact this is why it probably made a lot of sense to "run the code" as per get the Supreme Court to deliberate for a year so that throws up all the bugs we are likely to encounter. I'm sure they did a good job, but the fault lies in the previous legislation, e.g. the refugee act. The Refugee Act applies to the EU and France and the those running the EU Commission who carry liability for their actions … Free movement was not a right of anyone … Most in the World cannot walk into any Country and reside there! What nonsense. Illegal is illegal … apply the Law and Brexit border control …or quit Office … …. “Safe” is the responsibility of these Countries like France and North Africa … that let migrants be exploited, set off from their shores in bad boats and drown …The EU facilitates fast track migrant movement thru the EU, offers huge incentives and assists with broken borders and destabilisation in Ukraine, the Middle East, Africa, the Caribbean and other territories where they bully control. The French in particular facilitate traffickers and their exploitation. … It’s time for tough action and tough ‘love’ repatriation … we need Bruges Group breakaway policies … not Far Leftist extremist anarchist nonsense destabilising our Communities and putting rampaging mobs on our streets … attacking Law and Order. Strong borders foster safer communities … ask Israeli festival goers.🤔 All this may be true, but I'm just saying , don't blame the messenger. The Supreme Court's judgment is highly likely to be totally correct. What it shows us is how much red tape we have bound our state up with. You could say we didn't need to do any of this, but we did some out of convenience so we could enjoy other benefits of being in the EU etc. Now we know what the bugs are, we do what any programmer does. We fix all the bugs and offer an update. This will be in the form of a UK parliamentary bill. The government need only tell the civil servants to write bill that fixes every problem that impedes these flights taking off. The idea is that with freedom to stop the courts on this matter would be a good start and may facilitate giving other freedoms. Once we have passed that bill then no court in the UK can stop it. We then go through the same process again, as per run the code and see what bugs it kicks out in the international law, and once we have got the answer we can amend the relevant treaties so make it legal in the international level. The good news is we got the verdict, since waiting for that was time we could ill afford. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 21, 2023 7:44:49 GMT
Usual bollocks, BvL. "Asylum seekers" are in no way unsafe in Rwanda because they're provided with very nice accommodation and are free to come and go as they please. If they don't like it they can leave and go to another country. If they were being detained in Rwanda then the judges might possibly be right. But they're not. Either the judges are stupid or this is a perverse decision that's politically influenced.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dubdrifter on Nov 21, 2023 9:04:45 GMT
Sorry I disagree … the Lords’ decision to spike the deliberately flawed, deliberately stupid Rwanda plan was the right decision. …. you don’t dump immigrant tribes into a totally alien foreign culture … and create a ‘ghetto’ in that land … it will cause utter resentment with the ‘locals’ … In this case warring Rwandan tribes with a horrific history for ‘ethnic cleansing’. Clearly a Gaza-style Massacre waiting to happen. 😖 This Rwanda Plan obviously came out of the BREMAINER Wing of the Tory Party entrenched in Whitehall allied to possibly Mossad-linked elements in the Monday Club … who must have been smirking when they conceived it - knowing it would ‘FAIL EPICALLY’ … waste time and distract those interested in border security from implementing an effective “none shall land on UK soil Plan” backed by our Military Forces. . Brexiteers would have been blamed for the subsequent inevitable ‘massacre’ and by the time this Plan fell apart … more immigrant ‘EU rejoin’ supporters would have flooded in and handed a UK Passport on a silver platter … with a guarantee to vote to put us back in the EU, and break our borders again so their relatives and families and friends can also flood in unchecked. These MONDAY CLUB members are the same ANTI-DEMOCRATIC Troop with links to Mossad who shoe-horned in the WEF’s wunderkind … Sunak - arguably a secret EU ‘stooge’ who has militarily supported EU/NATO/Soros Posse expansionist ambitions in Nazi-occupied Ukraine costing UK tax-payers ££££ BILLIONS! …. They kicked out and replaced Brexiteers Boris and Braverman … and stuck EU money launderer Cameron(with offshore Family accounts in the Carribean) in a top Home Office job. - Cameron is also a supporter of Zelenski - a dubious leader who let Ukraine be bullied by Azov Nazis. This Cameron appointment is a total betrayal of the British People … the man who left the wheelhouse when we voted Brexit … and left us to ‘founder on the rocks’ …. luckily this captain who abandoned us. …didn’t sink us. … we are made of sterner stuff than these rats from the scuppers. Whoever thought up this Rwandan Plan was ‘sick’ and ‘twisted’ … and pretty evil really … sending these immigrants into a ‘danger zone’ to be likely eradicated. Of all the places to send them. Insane.🫣 The cheap effective solution to this invasion problem is to NOT do the same as we did to the Spanish Armada … but just intercept trafficker vessels as they leave French shores and tow illegal vessels to safety into French ports. … dropping the traffickers in the water to swim ashore the last 20 yds is only fair. If one or two drown … meh … God’s justice at work, eh? If the French/EU Authorities won’t accept their responsibilities … then we will have to ignore that and repatriate them with their refugees regardless - using our Naval Forces if necessary. …. and let’s not forget to drag them through our Court System for £££@€€€millions in compensation. … it’s long overdue to get that neo-Nazi Van der Leyen - (her grandfather worked for Hitler and wanted Ukraine for German interests) - to pay longterm forced immigration damage reparations from EU Commission’s bulging coffers. |
|
