|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 23, 2022 23:16:01 GMT
Sandy you seem to be in denial when you keep posting this crap Not one of the HRA rights has been 'thrown to the four winds'. Either you just can't be arsed to actually read the HRA (you were given the link) or you are deliberately promoting a falsehood. Here are the human rights we have. I suggest you read Article 14 title out loud tracing each letter with your index finger and it might sink it. I've highlighted the words that don't appear to be getting through to your grey matter. Article 2: Right to life Article 3: Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Article 4: Freedom from slavery and forced labour Article 5: Right to liberty and security Article 6: Right to a fair trial Article 7: No punishment without law Article 8: Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Article 9: Freedom of thought, belief and religion Article 10: Freedom of expression Article 11: Freedom of assembly and association Article 12: Right to marry and start a family Article 14: Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms
Protocol 1, Article 1: Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Protocol 1, Article 2: Right to education Protocol 1, Article 3: Right to participate in free elections Protocol 13, Article 1: Abolition of the death penalty I have not mentioned the HRA act, I keep referring to the UN Declaration of human rights. No point in linking back to our HRA act. Article 2 Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Human rights belong to us all equally. If they do not then you do not have your human rights. What is so difficult to understand there. Well in that case you are even more all over the place The HRA is the instantiation in our law of the ECnHR which effectively is the instantiation in the Council of Europe countries of the UN declaration Tell me when you've caught up with this and maybe we can debate. Mean time it rather looks like you're trying to move goal posts because you fouled up before |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Dec 24, 2022 8:57:23 GMT
But never mind all that. Rwanda's legal, so let's get deporting.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Dec 24, 2022 9:19:28 GMT
But never mind all that. Rwanda's legal, so let's get deporting. Deport who? The court, whilst confirming that the deportations are legal, said that the 8 cases wanted to send to Rwanda would need to be reconsidered, as they hadn't been looked at properly. What a surprise. So, at present, there is noone to deport. I wonder how Rwanda is getting on with deporting their asylum seekers to the UK... |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Dec 24, 2022 9:24:58 GMT
But never mind all that. Rwanda's legal, so let's get deporting. Deport who? The court, whilst confirming that the deportations are legal, said that the 8 cases wanted to send to Rwanda would need to be reconsidered, as they hadn't been looked at properly. What a surprise. So, at present, there is noone to deport. I wonder how Rwanda is getting on with deporting their asylum seekers to the UK... I cannot be bothered looking back and who said it, but the same as them I will believe it when I see it. As also this has gone back and forth for months and it is only set up for a 1000 anyway. Which only covers about one busy day. Meanwhile the this is the new norm has already started. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Dec 24, 2022 9:26:25 GMT
Deport who? The court, whilst confirming that the deportations are legal, said that the 8 cases wanted to send to Rwanda would need to be reconsidered, as they hadn't been looked at properly. What a surprise. So, at present, there is noone to deport. I wonder how Rwanda is getting on with deporting their asylum seekers to the UK... There's nothing to prevent the Home Office from prepping a new batch to be ready to go when flagged off.
That might be sooner than we imagine if the High Court refuses leave to appeal since at that point all domestic avenues of appeal will be exhausted. The ECtHR 'Rule 35' injunction itself then expires three weeks from that point.
"I wonder how Rwanda is getting on with deporting their asylum seekers to the UK... "
Is that provided for in the agreement?
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Dec 24, 2022 10:07:59 GMT
Yes. It is a reciprocal agreement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Dec 24, 2022 10:32:32 GMT
That appears to be true, kind of.
Simon Fell: My final question is this. There is a quid pro quo, which is that we have agreed to take some of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees. What criteria will be used to select them? Do you have an idea on numbers for those?
Tom Pursglove: We will say more about that in due course, as you would expect. What I can say is that we are talking tens here. It will be individuals who have particularly complex needs that we are perhaps better able to meet in the United Kingdom—for example, where there are particularly acute health vulnerabilities.
Q26 Chair: You said that Rwandans were excluded from this scheme.
Tom Pursglove: Yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Dec 24, 2022 10:40:43 GMT
Indeed. Rwandans cannot claim asylum in Rwanda, in the same way that a British citizen cannot claim asylum in the UK. Sometimes I wonder about the intelligence of our politicians.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 24, 2022 18:17:17 GMT
Deport who? The court, whilst confirming that the deportations are legal, said that the 8 cases wanted to send to Rwanda would need to be reconsidered, as they hadn't been looked at properly. What a surprise. So, at present, there is noone to deport. I wonder how Rwanda is getting on with deporting their asylum seekers to the UK... There's nothing to prevent the Home Office from prepping a new batch to be ready to go when flagged off.
That might be sooner than we imagine if the High Court refuses leave to appeal since at that point all domestic avenues of appeal will be exhausted. The ECtHR 'Rule 35' injunction itself then expires three weeks from that point.
"I wonder how Rwanda is getting on with deporting their asylum seekers to the UK... "
Is that provided for in the agreement?
No because a refusal of leave to appeal can in itself be appealed. And as I've posted before, that para 77 of the judgement seems so flawed that it would be hard to deny an appeal. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 24, 2022 18:50:26 GMT
There's nothing to prevent the Home Office from prepping a new batch to be ready to go when flagged off.
That might be sooner than we imagine if the High Court refuses leave to appeal since at that point all domestic avenues of appeal will be exhausted. The ECtHR 'Rule 35' injunction itself then expires three weeks from that point.
"I wonder how Rwanda is getting on with deporting their asylum seekers to the UK... "
Is that provided for in the agreement?
No because a refusal of leave to appeal can in itself be appealed. And as I've posted before, that para 77 of the judgement seems so flawed that it would be hard to deny an appeal. Yes it can be by a higher court. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 24, 2022 18:57:43 GMT
I have not mentioned the HRA act, I keep referring to the UN Declaration of human rights. No point in linking back to our HRA act. Article 2 Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Human rights belong to us all equally. If they do not then you do not have your human rights. What is so difficult to understand there. Well in that case you are even more all over the place The HRA is the instantiation in our law of the ECnHR which effectively is the instantiation in the Council of Europe countries of the UN declaration Tell me when you've caught up with this and maybe we can debate. Mean time it rather looks like you're trying to move goal posts because you fouled up before Well then if that is the case can people in this country in law be discriminated against to their specific disadvantage based solely on their ethnicity? |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 25, 2022 0:35:44 GMT
Yes, and their gender etc. A white bloke with a stutter and a gammy leg stands no chance of getting the lead part in a Supremes tribute act, quite legally.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 26, 2022 16:03:22 GMT
Yes, and their gender etc. A white bloke with a stutter and a gammy leg stands no chance of getting the lead part in a Supremes tribute act, quite legally. How you are being obtuse. Can a person be racially discriminated against for employment on the basis of their ethnicity when the specific job does not require a specific ethnicity. Oh by the way we all know Dianna Ross was black we all know Anne Boleyn was white so it seems ethnicity is not important certainly in one way for such jobs and what is a woman anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 26, 2022 17:15:34 GMT
Look you asked a question and you got a clear and relevant answer with an illustrative example. Seems you didn't want to ask that question at all but don't blame me for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 26, 2022 21:33:16 GMT
Look you asked a question and you got a clear and relevant answer with an illustrative example. Seems you didn't want to ask that question at all but don't blame me for that. I asked a question you dodged, are you also dodging this one. You know very well what I was asking in furtherance of my point. |
|
