|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Dec 20, 2022 8:40:40 GMT
What is "nonsense"?
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Dec 20, 2022 8:42:07 GMT
You seem to be alleging that the scheme will not be a deterrent. The Civil Service agrees with you. I have no doubt that you are correct. Which leaves 2 possibilities : 1. The government thinks it will be 2. They don't care whether it is or not, as long as it appeals to their supporters Not the Civil Services decision to make - they are there to do as they are told. Indeed, but that doesn't mean that they don't have an opinion. I believe the PCS union were part of the case. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Dec 20, 2022 9:13:04 GMT
Not the Civil Services decision to make - they are there to do as they are told. Indeed, but that doesn't mean that they don't have an opinion. I believe the PCS union were part of the case. Yes the Union did present itself as a claimant in the case, alongside the eight asylum seekers who were the actual, bona-fide claimants.
However this drew short-shrift from the justices, who ruled that the PCSU (and the charities involved) had no standing as claimants. Edited extracts from the Judgment [emphasis added]:
"... 431. The PCSU is a trade union recognised to represent Home Office officials working in the Third Country Unit and the Detained Barrier Casework Team. The submission for the PCSU was that it had “associational” standing; its members include the civil servants who take inadmissibility and removal decisions on behalf of the Home Secretary. The PCSU submitted that its members were “directly affected” by the Home Secretary’s Rwanda policy, and/or that the requirement, as part of their day-to-day duties as civil servants, that they take decisions on the application of the policy, had a “real impact on their working conditions and well-being”.
432. These matters do not suffice to give the PCSU standing to challenge the decisions in issue in this case. … On any analysis, PCSU’s submission on standing amounts to the submission that any person working for a public authority has sufficient interest to challenge any decision taken by that public authority if she had some role in taking the decision. This would provide the PCSU (or any other trade union representing persons employed by a public authority) a roving mandate to commence judicial review proceedings directed to any decision of which at least some of its members disapproved. The submission was put in terms of the “well-being” of the PCSU’s members, but the substance of the matter is disagreement with the Home Secretary’s policy. It would not be uncommon for those who work in the public sector to disagree with one or more of their employer’s policies; the stranger thing would be if no such disagreement existed. However, the PCSU’s members do not, by reason of their place of work or duties, have any greater standing, in the legal sense of the words, than any other member of the public. As their representative body, the PCSU can be no better-placed. …
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 20, 2022 9:16:55 GMT
Posting in wrong thread? ^ Oh dear Rouge is as ever shit scared of questions |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Dec 20, 2022 9:17:51 GMT
Red
As when and if the first plane load of alleged Asylum Seekers arrive in Rwanda, then I will believe it may work
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 20, 2022 9:18:27 GMT
This case was at the High Court. More than likely the next case will go to the Supreme Court. So what. This is just part of the nonsense. Why did Blair create the Supreme Court? It just wastes even more time. . . . To replace the Law Lords which took same time and were less accountable |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 20, 2022 9:19:15 GMT
So 'not hanging gays' is your sole test of a safe country is it? There are other requirements that the government itself has defined. Steve, how many Albanian refugees from the war torn state of France are you prepared to accommodate. Stop gobbing off. And Rouge as ever can't actually follow a line of debate. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 20, 2022 9:24:20 GMT
Indeed, but that doesn't mean that they don't have an opinion. I believe the PCS union were part of the case. Yes the Union did present itself as a claimant in the case, alongside the eight asylum seekers who were the actual, bona-fide claimants.
However this drew short-shrift from the justices, who ruled that the PCSU (and the charities involved) had no standing as claimants. Edited extracts from the Judgment [emphasis added]:
"... 431. The PCSU is a trade union recognised to represent Home Office officials working in the Third Country Unit and the Detained Barrier Casework Team. The submission for the PCSU was that it had “associational” standing; its members include the civil servants who take inadmissibility and removal decisions on behalf of the Home Secretary. The PCSU submitted that its members were “directly affected” by the Home Secretary’s Rwanda policy, and/or that the requirement, as part of their day-to-day duties as civil servants, that they take decisions on the application of the policy, had a “real impact on their working conditions and well-being”.
432. These matters do not suffice to give the PCSU standing to challenge the decisions in issue in this case. … On any analysis, PCSU’s submission on standing amounts to the submission that any person working for a public authority has sufficient interest to challenge any decision taken by that public authority if she had some role in taking the decision. This would provide the PCSU (or any other trade union representing persons employed by a public authority) a roving mandate to commence judicial review proceedings directed to any decision of which at least some of its members disapproved. The submission was put in terms of the “well-being” of the PCSU’s members, but the substance of the matter is disagreement with the Home Secretary’s policy. It would not be uncommon for those who work in the public sector to disagree with one or more of their employer’s policies; the stranger thing would be if no such disagreement existed. However, the PCSU’s members do not, by reason of their place of work or duties, have any greater standing, in the legal sense of the words, than any other member of the public. As their representative body, the PCSU can be no better-placed. …
As mentioned before this whole issue of 'standing' needs resolving. The way we are going with this government and some judges is to have a government above its own laws as they will seek to prevent anyone that has the resources to challenge them from challenging them. A dangerous line. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Dec 20, 2022 9:35:30 GMT
Anyways, if it's lawful let's get cracking and send them off there. If they want to appeal subsequently, they can do it from Rwanda. What's not to like? That on the current policy even if they win that appeal they are not to be allowed back? That Rwanda is not a safe country for those whose political views don't align with their current government? Sounds good to me. We need to get out of the mindset that we owe these people. We don't. The purpose is to put them off coming and I think it would work. So let's crack on. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 20, 2022 9:39:33 GMT
Well as I've said umpteen times we should be offshoring them to South Georgia. It's ours, it's safe and it's never going to encourage those economic migrants. Picking Rwanda was dumb on so many levels
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Dec 20, 2022 10:19:42 GMT
Sounds fair enough too. We've got plenty of British islands we could use, which would avoid most legal challenges.
We should also opt out of all the Human Rights nonsense while we're at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Dec 20, 2022 10:32:35 GMT
Sounds fair enough too. We've got plenty of British islands we could use, which would avoid most legal challenges. We should also opt out of all the Human Rights nonsense while we're at it. Ah Nigel. He managed a two line wonder. . And you actually believe that. As they stop your pension with human rights nonsense, that will not be there. . So tell me. Its like the levelling up crap. Why should there be a need to level up in the first place. . In this case. To claim asylum in the UK. You have to stand on UK soil. So to get to Rwanda. You have to get to the UK first. And Rwanda is where you will stay. But I do believe the hotels there. There is plenty of draughts going under the door. Not sure if you plastic sheets on the window, and wearing 4 pairs of knickers as advised by the wankers in Westminster will help with the heating. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Dec 20, 2022 10:38:47 GMT
Anyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Dec 20, 2022 10:43:40 GMT
Come on, Jade can hardly cope with one liners, how do you think he'll cope with one word? |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Dec 20, 2022 11:42:54 GMT
The Rwanda Plan only achieves one thing.
It shows how out of touch with public opinion and reality the Tories have become.
No matter what anybody says, we simply cannot stop people coming here and there is not much we can do to remove them. The safe routes idea is also stupid as it will make the situation even worse. Unless you think the people who are denied entry will not just hop on a boat anyway lol.
Get them processed quickly, and get them working. The numbers are peanuts compared to what we allowed under Freedom of Movement anyway.
|
|
