FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Flights to Rwanda back on now legal
Flights to Rwanda back on now legal
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over."
Who pays these lawyers "a fortune"?
What information do you have for how much they earn from these cases? Could you please share?
The flights are not "back on" yet as there are likely to be further appeals and a change in how they assess those eligible for removal.
You will just have to remain patient for due process to take its course. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Spiffing news. Finally some red meat to throw to far right wing loons. The perfect Xmas present. For would Jesus himself not be proud of the Rwanda policy? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Spiffing news. Finally some red meat to throw to far right wing loons. The perfect Xmas present. For would Jesus himself not be proud of the Rwanda policy?"
Mary and Joseph were migrants. They would be on the plane to Rwanda too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Spiffing news. Finally some red meat to throw to far right wing loons. The perfect Xmas present. For would Jesus himself not be proud of the Rwanda policy?
Mary and Joseph were migrants. They would be on the plane to Rwanda too. "
Off to Rwanda with em, I say. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.
(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.
(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)
"
What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.
(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)
What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange "
Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.
(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)
What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange
Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details."
agreed. It will buy them votes in 2024. That's what matters. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.
(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)
What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange
Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.agreed. It will buy them votes in 2024. That's what matters. "
That's what I have been saying all along when everyone is gleefully predicting an end to Tory rule. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over."
I imagine there are appeals to be lodged yet and assume nothing can happen while awaiting the appeals to be heard. Is there a limit to the amount of appeals allowed or is it indefinite. Also even if appeals are rejected, can't the ECHR intervene to stop it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.
I imagine there are appeals to be lodged yet and assume nothing can happen while awaiting the appeals to be heard. Is there a limit to the amount of appeals allowed or is it indefinite. Also even if appeals are rejected, can't the ECHR intervene to stop it?"
Supreme Court for any particular ruling. So only two more steps.
However, the ruling implies that every individual order for each person could be appealed as well.
ECHR could intervene, but that's why the UK wants to withdraw from it, together with Belarus and Russia. Some might not consider that a good look.
You are probably aware of this, but for the benefit others; the European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.
I imagine there are appeals to be lodged yet and assume nothing can happen while awaiting the appeals to be heard. Is there a limit to the amount of appeals allowed or is it indefinite. Also even if appeals are rejected, can't the ECHR intervene to stop it?
Supreme Court for any particular ruling. So only two more steps.
However, the ruling implies that every individual order for each person could be appealed as well.
ECHR could intervene, but that's why the UK wants to withdraw from it, together with Belarus and Russia. Some might not consider that a good look.
You are probably aware of this, but for the benefit others; the European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU."
Two more steps (if those concerned decide to press ahead) should drag this on for quite a while as never seems to be quick. I did see the court saying 8 individual claims need assessment again as they may not be fair. If the government does withdraw from the ECHR then that maybe a bigger story in its own right. If they don't I guess we have to wait to see if they intervene. Yes I'm aware the ECHR and EU are different though your right to say they sometimes get mixed up |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.
(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)
What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange
Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details."
Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.
I imagine there are appeals to be lodged yet and assume nothing can happen while awaiting the appeals to be heard. Is there a limit to the amount of appeals allowed or is it indefinite. Also even if appeals are rejected, can't the ECHR intervene to stop it?
Supreme Court for any particular ruling. So only two more steps.
However, the ruling implies that every individual order for each person could be appealed as well.
ECHR could intervene, but that's why the UK wants to withdraw from it, together with Belarus and Russia. Some might not consider that a good look.
You are probably aware of this, but for the benefit others; the European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU."
Australia. They are not completely aligned but are in a position to relocate. All I need is a government that does the same |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.
(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)
What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange
Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.
Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia "
It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.
(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)
What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange
Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.
Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia
It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too. "
Abhorrent? That's a point of view |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.
(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)
What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange
Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.
Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia
It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.
Abhorrent? That's a point of view "
Correct, the point of view from anyone who doesn't like other humans treated with so little compassion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.
(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)
What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange
Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.
Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia
It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.
Abhorrent? That's a point of view
Correct, the point of view from anyone who doesn't like other humans treated with so little compassion. "
That depends on the humans in question |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.
(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)
What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange
Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.
Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia
It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.
Abhorrent? That's a point of view
Correct, the point of view from anyone who doesn't like other humans treated with so little compassion.
That depends on the humans in question"
The humans in question are people seeking asylum. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.
(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)
What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange
Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.
Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia
It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.
Abhorrent? That's a point of view "
There have been serious abuse scandals and they have paid out tens of millions of dollars in compensation.
So, I hope it is very different to Australia's policy, but I sadly don't think that it will be any better because this is being led by short term politics, not strategy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.
(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)
What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange
Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.
Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia
It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.
Abhorrent? That's a point of view
Correct, the point of view from anyone who doesn't like other humans treated with so little compassion.
That depends on the humans in question"
Treating people as humans "depends"?
Did you really mean that, or are you just caught up in the argument? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.
(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)
What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange
Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.
Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia
It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.
Abhorrent? That's a point of view
Correct, the point of view from anyone who doesn't like other humans treated with so little compassion.
That depends on the humans in question
Treating people as humans "depends"?
Did you really mean that, or are you just caught up in the argument?"
Crossed my mind too. So much for decency...  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.
How many do you think we should send
How many do you think we should accept "
Everyone who is legally entitled to claim asylum, how many should we send to Rwanda? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.
How many do you think we should send
How many do you think we should accept "
In the year to June 2022 UK immigration was 1.1 million. This was before any of the modest number of Ukrainian refugees were allowed in.
So, we aren't that full it seems. We also have a lot of vacancies to fill in both high value and low value jobs.
Refugees are very motivated to work and will be net tax payers soon enough.
Substitute some of the skilled immigrants with skilled refugees and some unskilled and we can probably accommodate over one hundred thousand a year, wouldn't you say? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.
How many do you think we should send
How many do you think we should accept
In the year to June 2022 UK immigration was 1.1 million. This was before any of the modest number of Ukrainian refugees were allowed in.
So, we aren't that full it seems. We also have a lot of vacancies to fill in both high value and low value jobs.
Refugees are very motivated to work and will be net tax payers soon enough.
Substitute some of the skilled immigrants with skilled refugees and some unskilled and we can probably accommodate over one hundred thousand a year, wouldn't you say?"
no don't want any get are house in order first then look until then send everyone back home or Rwanda either I don't care. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.
How many do you think we should send
How many do you think we should accept
In the year to June 2022 UK immigration was 1.1 million. This was before any of the modest number of Ukrainian refugees were allowed in.
So, we aren't that full it seems. We also have a lot of vacancies to fill in both high value and low value jobs.
Refugees are very motivated to work and will be net tax payers soon enough.
Substitute some of the skilled immigrants with skilled refugees and some unskilled and we can probably accommodate over one hundred thousand a year, wouldn't you say?no don't want any get are house in order first then look until then send everyone back home or Rwanda either I don't care."
You seem a bit confused.
So the 1.1 million immigrants who came here in 2022 shouldn't have come because "our house is not in order"?
We are proposing to spend hundreds of millions on preventing those with legitimate asylum concerns from entering the country and deporting those who do in order to prevent economic migrants from coming here?
We are going to spend how much money to save how much money to get "our house in order"?
"I don't care" sadly feels like the default position of many people. Often those with the hardest views on refugees have an equally uncompromising opinion on those in distress within the UK. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.
How many do you think we should send
How many do you think we should accept
Everyone who is legally entitled to claim asylum, how many should we send to Rwanda? "
And what do you propose is to be done with those who aren't entitled to asylum |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.
(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)
What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange
Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.
Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia
It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.
Abhorrent? That's a point of view
Correct, the point of view from anyone who doesn't like other humans treated with so little compassion.
That depends on the humans in question
Treating people as humans "depends"?
Did you really mean that, or are you just caught up in the argument?"
Your opinion on convicted criminals? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.
(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)
What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange
Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.
Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia
It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.
Abhorrent? That's a point of view
There have been serious abuse scandals and they have paid out tens of millions of dollars in compensation.
So, I hope it is very different to Australia's policy, but I sadly don't think that it will be any better because this is being led by short term politics, not strategy."
I'd be happy to copy Australia's policy. End of |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.
How many do you think we should send
How many do you think we should accept
Everyone who is legally entitled to claim asylum, how many should we send to Rwanda?
And what do you propose is to be done with those who aren't entitled to asylum "
They can be returned home.
How does preventing legal routes for those seeking asylum help that? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.
How many do you think we should send
How many do you think we should accept
Everyone who is legally entitled to claim asylum, how many should we send to Rwanda?
And what do you propose is to be done with those who aren't entitled to asylum
They can be returned home.
How does preventing legal routes for those seeking asylum help that?"
Home? Where is home exactly? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.
How many do you think we should send
How many do you think we should accept
Everyone who is legally entitled to claim asylum, how many should we send to Rwanda?
And what do you propose is to be done with those who aren't entitled to asylum
They can be returned home.
How does preventing legal routes for those seeking asylum help that?"
or Rwanda  or where the HO decided they should have claimed asylum. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.
(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)
What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange
Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.
Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia
It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.
Abhorrent? That's a point of view
Correct, the point of view from anyone who doesn't like other humans treated with so little compassion.
That depends on the humans in question
Treating people as humans "depends"?
Did you really mean that, or are you just caught up in the argument?
Your opinion on convicted criminals? "
What crime? Shoplifting to find food for your family? Stealing a bicycle when you were thirteen?
I'd still treat thieves and murderers as human beings though.
The overwhelming majority of refugees and those seeking asylum are not criminals though. So why bring that up? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.
(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)
What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange
Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.
Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia
It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.
Abhorrent? That's a point of view
Correct, the point of view from anyone who doesn't like other humans treated with so little compassion.
That depends on the humans in question
Treating people as humans "depends"?
Did you really mean that, or are you just caught up in the argument?
Your opinion on convicted criminals?
What crime? Shoplifting to find food for your family? Stealing a bicycle when you were thirteen?
I'd still treat thieves and murderers as human beings though.
The overwhelming majority of refugees and those seeking asylum are not criminals though. So why bring that up?"
You'd treat murderers as human beings? Then I don't want to live in your world |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.
How many do you think we should send
How many do you think we should accept
Everyone who is legally entitled to claim asylum, how many should we send to Rwanda?
And what do you propose is to be done with those who aren't entitled to asylum
They can be returned home.
How does preventing legal routes for those seeking asylum help that?
Home? Where is home exactly? "
Where is home exactly? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.
(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)
What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange
Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.
Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia
It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.
Abhorrent? That's a point of view
Correct, the point of view from anyone who doesn't like other humans treated with so little compassion.
That depends on the humans in question
Treating people as humans "depends"?
Did you really mean that, or are you just caught up in the argument?
Your opinion on convicted criminals?
What crime? Shoplifting to find food for your family? Stealing a bicycle when you were thirteen?
I'd still treat thieves and murderers as human beings though.
The overwhelming majority of refugees and those seeking asylum are not criminals though. So why bring that up?
You'd treat murderers as human beings? Then I don't want to live in your world "
You seem confused, this thread is about the horrific inhuman policies this government champions towards immigrants, not murderers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.
(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)
What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange
Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.
Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia
It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.
Abhorrent? That's a point of view
Correct, the point of view from anyone who doesn't like other humans treated with so little compassion.
That depends on the humans in question
Treating people as humans "depends"?
Did you really mean that, or are you just caught up in the argument?
Your opinion on convicted criminals?
What crime? Shoplifting to find food for your family? Stealing a bicycle when you were thirteen?
I'd still treat thieves and murderers as human beings though.
The overwhelming majority of refugees and those seeking asylum are not criminals though. So why bring that up?
You'd treat murderers as human beings? Then I don't want to live in your world
You seem confused, this thread is about the horrific inhuman policies this government champions towards immigrants, not murderers. "
You seem confused, I'm dealing with a comment raised earlier that quite clearly stated murderers would be treated by him as human beings. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.
How many do you think we should send
How many do you think we should accept
Everyone who is legally entitled to claim asylum, how many should we send to Rwanda?
And what do you propose is to be done with those who aren't entitled to asylum
They can be returned home.
How does preventing legal routes for those seeking asylum help that?
Home? Where is home exactly? "
It seems that you are now avoiding thinking.
You are unable to explain a connection between dehumanising refugees and those in need of asylum, and preventing economic migration.
You are unable to explain why you are trying to link criminals and refugees.
You are just are now just trying to distract. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.
(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)
What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange
Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.
Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia
It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.
Abhorrent? That's a point of view
Correct, the point of view from anyone who doesn't like other humans treated with so little compassion.
That depends on the humans in question
Treating people as humans "depends"?
Did you really mean that, or are you just caught up in the argument?
Your opinion on convicted criminals?
What crime? Shoplifting to find food for your family? Stealing a bicycle when you were thirteen?
I'd still treat thieves and murderers as human beings though.
The overwhelming majority of refugees and those seeking asylum are not criminals though. So why bring that up?
You'd treat murderers as human beings? Then I don't want to live in your world "
Distraction |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.
How many do you think we should send
How many do you think we should accept
Everyone who is legally entitled to claim asylum, how many should we send to Rwanda?
And what do you propose is to be done with those who aren't entitled to asylum
They can be returned home.
How does preventing legal routes for those seeking asylum help that?
Home? Where is home exactly? "
Distraction |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.
(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)
What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange
Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.
Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia
It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.
Abhorrent? That's a point of view
Correct, the point of view from anyone who doesn't like other humans treated with so little compassion.
That depends on the humans in question
Treating people as humans "depends"?
Did you really mean that, or are you just caught up in the argument?
Your opinion on convicted criminals?
What crime? Shoplifting to find food for your family? Stealing a bicycle when you were thirteen?
I'd still treat thieves and murderers as human beings though.
The overwhelming majority of refugees and those seeking asylum are not criminals though. So why bring that up?
You'd treat murderers as human beings? Then I don't want to live in your world
You seem confused, this thread is about the horrific inhuman policies this government champions towards immigrants, not murderers.
You seem confused, I'm dealing with a comment raised earlier that quite clearly stated murderers would be treated by him as human beings. "
Distraction |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.
(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)
What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange
Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.
Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia
It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.
Abhorrent? That's a point of view
Correct, the point of view from anyone who doesn't like other humans treated with so little compassion.
That depends on the humans in question
Treating people as humans "depends"?
Did you really mean that, or are you just caught up in the argument?
Your opinion on convicted criminals?
What crime? Shoplifting to find food for your family? Stealing a bicycle when you were thirteen?
I'd still treat thieves and murderers as human beings though.
The overwhelming majority of refugees and those seeking asylum are not criminals though. So why bring that up?
You'd treat murderers as human beings? Then I don't want to live in your world
Distraction"
You seem incapable of answering |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.
How many do you think we should send
How many do you think we should accept
Everyone who is legally entitled to claim asylum, how many should we send to Rwanda?
And what do you propose is to be done with those who aren't entitled to asylum
They can be returned home.
How does preventing legal routes for those seeking asylum help that?
Home? Where is home exactly?
Distraction"
You said "home". Simply wondering where that might be. Your inability to reply isn't a distraction |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"My prediction: public is dismayed when they find out it's only legal for those with failed asylum requests, and so nothing really changes.
(The reason the 8 cases aren't on a plane is because the HO messed up showing they were rejections)
What will happen when the public realise that Rwanda can send us refugees they don’t want in exchange
Doesn't matter, people who think this kind of policy is a good idea don't pay attention to details.
Why is this policy any different to that applied by Australia
It's not exactly the same, but you're right Australia have abhorrent attitudes towards immigrants too.
Abhorrent? That's a point of view
Correct, the point of view from anyone who doesn't like other humans treated with so little compassion.
That depends on the humans in question
Treating people as humans "depends"?
Did you really mean that, or are you just caught up in the argument?
Your opinion on convicted criminals?
What crime? Shoplifting to find food for your family? Stealing a bicycle when you were thirteen?
I'd still treat thieves and murderers as human beings though.
The overwhelming majority of refugees and those seeking asylum are not criminals though. So why bring that up?
You'd treat murderers as human beings? Then I don't want to live in your world
Distraction
You seem incapable of answering "
Distraction |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.
How many do you think we should send
How many do you think we should accept
Everyone who is legally entitled to claim asylum, how many should we send to Rwanda?
And what do you propose is to be done with those who aren't entitled to asylum
They can be returned home.
How does preventing legal routes for those seeking asylum help that?
Home? Where is home exactly?
Distraction
You said "home". Simply wondering where that might be. Your inability to reply isn't a distraction"
Refugees and those on need of asylum come from many places, as do economic migrants.
Distraction.
You are unable to explain a connection between dehumanising refugees and those in need of asylum, and preventing economic migration.
You are unable to explain why you are trying to link criminals and refugees.
You are unable to explain why you don't wish to treat people like humans.
You continue to try to distract. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Home is wherever their passport states, and if their asylum application is rejected then they should go back there. Which most of the racists would probably agree with. Then you remind them that Shamima Begum is British and it confuses them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.
How many do you think we should send
How many do you think we should accept
Everyone who is legally entitled to claim asylum, how many should we send to Rwanda?
And what do you propose is to be done with those who aren't entitled to asylum
They can be returned home.
How does preventing legal routes for those seeking asylum help that?
Home? Where is home exactly?
Distraction
You said "home". Simply wondering where that might be. Your inability to reply isn't a distraction
Refugees and those on need of asylum come from many places, as do economic migrants.
Distraction.
You are unable to explain a connection between dehumanising refugees and those in need of asylum, and preventing economic migration.
You are unable to explain why you are trying to link criminals and refugees.
You are unable to explain why you don't wish to treat people like humans.
You continue to try to distract."
Pathetic |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Hopefully the legal system will help many of them.to stat here in the UK to have a better life may god help them"
That is not what our government wants.
Apparently, many of us actively vote to not help them. You can see the expression of that callousness on this thread. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.
How many do you think we should send
How many do you think we should accept
Everyone who is legally entitled to claim asylum, how many should we send to Rwanda?
And what do you propose is to be done with those who aren't entitled to asylum
They can be returned home.
How does preventing legal routes for those seeking asylum help that?
Home? Where is home exactly?
Distraction
You said "home". Simply wondering where that might be. Your inability to reply isn't a distraction
Refugees and those on need of asylum come from many places, as do economic migrants.
Distraction.
You are unable to explain a connection between dehumanising refugees and those in need of asylum, and preventing economic migration.
You are unable to explain why you are trying to link criminals and refugees.
You are unable to explain why you don't wish to treat people like humans.
You continue to try to distract.
Pathetic "
You are unable to explain a connection between dehumanising refugees and those in need of asylum, and preventing economic migration.
You are unable to explain why you are trying to link criminals and refugees.
You are unable to explain why you don't wish to treat people like humans.
You continue to try to distract.
That is, indeed, pathetic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hopefully the legal system will help many of them.to stat here in the UK to have a better life may god help them
That is not what our government wants.
Apparently, many of us actively vote to not help them. You can see the expression of that callousness on this thread."
Apparently empty supermarket shelves, unpicked produce and understaffed infrastructure are a good thing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.
How many do you think we should send
How many do you think we should accept
Everyone who is legally entitled to claim asylum, how many should we send to Rwanda?
And what do you propose is to be done with those who aren't entitled to asylum
They can be returned home.
How does preventing legal routes for those seeking asylum help that?
Home? Where is home exactly?
Distraction
You said "home". Simply wondering where that might be. Your inability to reply isn't a distraction
Refugees and those on need of asylum come from many places, as do economic migrants.
Distraction.
You are unable to explain a connection between dehumanising refugees and those in need of asylum, and preventing economic migration.
You are unable to explain why you are trying to link criminals and refugees.
You are unable to explain why you don't wish to treat people like humans.
You continue to try to distract.
Pathetic
You are unable to explain a connection between dehumanising refugees and those in need of asylum, and preventing economic migration.
You are unable to explain why you are trying to link criminals and refugees.
You are unable to explain why you don't wish to treat people like humans.
You continue to try to distract.
That is, indeed, pathetic."
Hilarious. You are unable to justify anything you have said. Return them home, treat murderers as human beings. How do you return someone home with no passport, if they refuse to say where they originate? As for the murderers line, you're welcome to it. I will not waste my time responding to your drivel on this topic unless of course you identify "home" and deal with the murderer issue |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If they are entitled to asylum, then why not do it in the first countries they come to. Why travel through Europe to get to Britain. We are far to lenient. "
That argument again?
Any number of reasons - it could be language, family ties, history or dozens of other reasons, including promises made by the government to Afghan interpreters. . By your logic everyone fleeing Ukraine should stop in Poland. Why should Poland be forced to take everyone? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Get ready for the human rights lawyers making a fortune now legal send them over.
How many do you think we should send
How many do you think we should accept
Everyone who is legally entitled to claim asylum, how many should we send to Rwanda?
And what do you propose is to be done with those who aren't entitled to asylum
They can be returned home.
How does preventing legal routes for those seeking asylum help that?
Home? Where is home exactly?
Distraction
You said "home". Simply wondering where that might be. Your inability to reply isn't a distraction
Refugees and those on need of asylum come from many places, as do economic migrants.
Distraction.
You are unable to explain a connection between dehumanising refugees and those in need of asylum, and preventing economic migration.
You are unable to explain why you are trying to link criminals and refugees.
You are unable to explain why you don't wish to treat people like humans.
You continue to try to distract.
Pathetic
You are unable to explain a connection between dehumanising refugees and those in need of asylum, and preventing economic migration.
You are unable to explain why you are trying to link criminals and refugees.
You are unable to explain why you don't wish to treat people like humans.
You continue to try to distract.
That is, indeed, pathetic.
Hilarious. You are unable to justify anything you have said. Return them home, treat murderers as human beings. How do you return someone home with no passport, if they refuse to say where they originate? As for the murderers line, you're welcome to it. I will not waste my time responding to your drivel on this topic unless of course you identify "home" and deal with the murderer issue "
You are unable to explain a connection between dehumanising refugees and those in need of asylum, and preventing economic migration.
You are unable to explain why you are trying to link criminals and refugees.
You are unable to explain why you don't wish to treat people like humans.
You continue to try to distract.
Now anger. The real you. The real motivating emotion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"If they are entitled to asylum, then why not do it in the first countries they come to. Why travel through Europe to get to Britain. We are far to lenient. "
Why do you think? Why would they take such risks?
Family here? Friends? A community that they are familiar with? They speak English?
Why do you think people take such risks?
Are you are implying that they are not "real" refugees and asylum seekers because you cannot understand their motivation?
Lenient? We have stopped every route for refugees and those in need of asylum to come here. Why would we hate such people? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If they are entitled to asylum, then why not do it in the first countries they come to. Why travel through Europe to get to Britain. We are far to lenient.
Why do you think? Why would they take such risks?
Family here? Friends? A community that they are familiar with? They speak English?
Why do you think people take such risks?
Are you are implying that they are not "real" refugees and asylum seekers because you cannot understand their motivation?
Lenient? We have stopped every route for refugees and those in need of asylum to come here. Why would we hate such people?"
The thing none of the racists grasp is that they are willing to risk death by drowning or hypothermia to get here, similar to the East Berliners trying to cross the wall 40 years ago. Whatever they are fleeing is a worse option for them.
40 years ago Farage and his fanboys would manning the searchlights on the western side of the wall. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ony 2016Man
over a year ago
Huddersfield /derby cinemas |
"Spiffing news. Finally some red meat to throw to far right wing loons. The perfect Xmas present. For would Jesus himself not be proud of the Rwanda policy?
Mary and Joseph were migrants. They would be on the plane to Rwanda too.
Off to Rwanda with em, I say."
Imagine the scenario of God sending his only Son back to Earth to spread His word , Jesus and twelve of his male friends arrive on British shores in a small boat ,,,, if you want to know what would ,or should happen next ask a Conservative MP who claims to be a Christian |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I wonder what the reaction would be if there were human traffickers organising boats for migrants/asylum seekers/refugees on the shore of Blackpool or Anglesey for them to get to their destruction of the isle of man.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If they are entitled to asylum, then why not do it in the first countries they come to. Why travel through Europe to get to Britain. We are far to lenient. "
How are we ‘lenient’ ?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Spiffing news. Finally some red meat to throw to far right wing loons. The perfect Xmas present. For would Jesus himself not be proud of the Rwanda policy?
Mary and Joseph were migrants. They would be on the plane to Rwanda too.
Off to Rwanda with em, I say. Imagine the scenario of God sending his only Son back to Earth to spread His word , Jesus and twelve of his male friends arrive on British shores in a small boat ,,,, if you want to know what would ,or should happen next ask a Conservative MP who claims to be a Christian "
Good point. Why are they almost all male ? Maybe so once here they can send for the rest of the family. So that'll be Lord knows how many more than the published numbers.
And BTW Mary and Joseph weren't migrants. They were in town to pay their taxes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Spiffing news. Finally some red meat to throw to far right wing loons. The perfect Xmas present. For would Jesus himself not be proud of the Rwanda policy?
Mary and Joseph were migrants. They would be on the plane to Rwanda too.
Off to Rwanda with em, I say. Imagine the scenario of God sending his only Son back to Earth to spread His word , Jesus and twelve of his male friends arrive on British shores in a small boat ,,,, if you want to know what would ,or should happen next ask a Conservative MP who claims to be a Christian
Good point. Why are they almost all male ? Maybe so once here they can send for the rest of the family. So that'll be Lord knows how many more than the published numbers.
And BTW Mary and Joseph weren't migrants. They were in town to pay their taxes."
I'm not as sure as I was about the sending for the rest of their family anymore. I caught a an interview with a Labour front bencher on the Sunday program. She was talking about the Dublin agreement that the UK is no longer a part of. As has been mentioned in the past this used to allow an easier return of
failed migrants. According to her the flip side was it also allowed successful migration claimants to then send for their family and when they arrived and claimed they would be accepted (because family already here). As the UJ is no longer a part of that agreement the the family issue us no longer accepted. I have not checked it out myself but as she is a senior member of Labour and likely to be in the next government then I would expect her to know |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Spiffing news. Finally some red meat to throw to far right wing loons. The perfect Xmas present. For would Jesus himself not be proud of the Rwanda policy?
Mary and Joseph were migrants. They would be on the plane to Rwanda too.
Off to Rwanda with em, I say. Imagine the scenario of God sending his only Son back to Earth to spread His word , Jesus and twelve of his male friends arrive on British shores in a small boat ,,,, if you want to know what would ,or should happen next ask a Conservative MP who claims to be a Christian
Good point. Why are they almost all male ? Maybe so once here they can send for the rest of the family. So that'll be Lord knows how many more than the published numbers.
And BTW Mary and Joseph weren't migrants. They were in town to pay their taxes.
I'm not as sure as I was about the sending for the rest of their family anymore. I caught a an interview with a Labour front bencher on the Sunday program. She was talking about the Dublin agreement that the UK is no longer a part of. As has been mentioned in the past this used to allow an easier return of
failed migrants. According to her the flip side was it also allowed successful migration claimants to then send for their family and when they arrived and claimed they would be accepted (because family already here). As the UJ is no longer a part of that agreement the the family issue us no longer accepted. I have not checked it out myself but as she is a senior member of Labour and likely to be in the next government then I would expect her to know"
I've not seen the interview just quotes so not 100pc sure you've interpreted this correctly. Given this would be low hanging fruit for a leave campaign I suspect you haven't.
My reading is if we allow people with family ties to claim in France, and then be transferred to the UK, you'd save putting lives at risk. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Spiffing news. Finally some red meat to throw to far right wing loons. The perfect Xmas present. For would Jesus himself not be proud of the Rwanda policy?
Mary and Joseph were migrants. They would be on the plane to Rwanda too.
Off to Rwanda with em, I say. Imagine the scenario of God sending his only Son back to Earth to spread His word , Jesus and twelve of his male friends arrive on British shores in a small boat ,,,, if you want to know what would ,or should happen next ask a Conservative MP who claims to be a Christian
Good point. Why are they almost all male ? Maybe so once here they can send for the rest of the family. So that'll be Lord knows how many more than the published numbers.
And BTW Mary and Joseph weren't migrants. They were in town to pay their taxes."
Perhaps because young men without families are the biggest threat to a repressive regime and the most likely to actively protest or fight?
Refugees and those in need of asylum pay taxes once they are allowed to work. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Spiffing news. Finally some red meat to throw to far right wing loons. The perfect Xmas present. For would Jesus himself not be proud of the Rwanda policy?
Mary and Joseph were migrants. They would be on the plane to Rwanda too.
Off to Rwanda with em, I say. Imagine the scenario of God sending his only Son back to Earth to spread His word , Jesus and twelve of his male friends arrive on British shores in a small boat ,,,, if you want to know what would ,or should happen next ask a Conservative MP who claims to be a Christian
Good point. Why are they almost all male ? Maybe so once here they can send for the rest of the family. So that'll be Lord knows how many more than the published numbers.
And BTW Mary and Joseph weren't migrants. They were in town to pay their taxes.
I'm not as sure as I was about the sending for the rest of their family anymore. I caught a an interview with a Labour front bencher on the Sunday program. She was talking about the Dublin agreement that the UK is no longer a part of. As has been mentioned in the past this used to allow an easier return of
failed migrants. According to her the flip side was it also allowed successful migration claimants to then send for their family and when they arrived and claimed they would be accepted (because family already here). As the UJ is no longer a part of that agreement the the family issue us no longer accepted. I have not checked it out myself but as she is a senior member of Labour and likely to be in the next government then I would expect her to knowI've not seen the interview just quotes so not 100pc sure you've interpreted this correctly. Given this would be low hanging fruit for a leave campaign I suspect you haven't.
My reading is if we allow people with family ties to claim in France, and then be transferred to the UK, you'd save putting lives at risk. "
I agree I may have misunderstood and like you say it would have been easy pickings for the leave campaign. She said it more than once and prettier sure she linked it to the Dublin agreement. I think it was Yvette Cooper and it was the Laura kunsberg program. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Send them back there's enough piss poor here already that can't afford to live
Really? So why did we accept 1.2 million immigrants through formal routes over the last year?"
Apologies, only 1.1 million |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What a dick there not piss poor "
You said "Send them back there's enough piss poor here already that can't afford to live".
Then "What a dick there not piss poor"
Are you arguing against yourself? Who is winning? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Spiffing news. Finally some red meat to throw to far right wing loons. The perfect Xmas present. For would Jesus himself not be proud of the Rwanda policy?
Mary and Joseph were migrants. They would be on the plane to Rwanda too.
Off to Rwanda with em, I say. Imagine the scenario of God sending his only Son back to Earth to spread His word , Jesus and twelve of his male friends arrive on British shores in a small boat ,,,, if you want to know what would ,or should happen next ask a Conservative MP who claims to be a Christian
Good point. Why are they almost all male ? Maybe so once here they can send for the rest of the family. So that'll be Lord knows how many more than the published numbers.
And BTW Mary and Joseph weren't migrants. They were in town to pay their taxes."
Mary and Joseph were also forced to leave their home against their will and travel somewhere else. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *estivalMan
over a year ago
borehamwood |
"Spiffing news. Finally some red meat to throw to far right wing loons. The perfect Xmas present. For would Jesus himself not be proud of the Rwanda policy?
Mary and Joseph were migrants. They would be on the plane to Rwanda too.
Off to Rwanda with em, I say. Imagine the scenario of God sending his only Son back to Earth to spread His word , Jesus and twelve of his male friends arrive on British shores in a small boat ,,,, if you want to know what would ,or should happen next ask a Conservative MP who claims to be a Christian "
why are you bringing make belive characters into it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Spiffing news. Finally some red meat to throw to far right wing loons. The perfect Xmas present. For would Jesus himself not be proud of the Rwanda policy?
Mary and Joseph were migrants. They would be on the plane to Rwanda too.
Off to Rwanda with em, I say. Imagine the scenario of God sending his only Son back to Earth to spread His word , Jesus and twelve of his male friends arrive on British shores in a small boat ,,,, if you want to know what would ,or should happen next ask a Conservative MP who claims to be a Christian
Good point. Why are they almost all male ? Maybe so once here they can send for the rest of the family. So that'll be Lord knows how many more than the published numbers.
And BTW Mary and Joseph weren't migrants. They were in town to pay their taxes.
Mary and Joseph were also forced to leave their home against their will and travel somewhere else."
Nowadays they'd pay by bank transfer  .
I always felt Joseph gad a bum deal. Having to bring up someone else's kid. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Spiffing news. Finally some red meat to throw to far right wing loons. The perfect Xmas present. For would Jesus himself not be proud of the Rwanda policy?
Mary and Joseph were migrants. They would be on the plane to Rwanda too.
Off to Rwanda with em, I say. Imagine the scenario of God sending his only Son back to Earth to spread His word , Jesus and twelve of his male friends arrive on British shores in a small boat ,,,, if you want to know what would ,or should happen next ask a Conservative MP who claims to be a Christian
Good point. Why are they almost all male ? Maybe so once here they can send for the rest of the family. So that'll be Lord knows how many more than the published numbers.
And BTW Mary and Joseph weren't migrants. They were in town to pay their taxes.
Mary and Joseph were also forced to leave their home against their will and travel somewhere else.
Nowadays they'd pay by bank transfer .
I always felt Joseph gad a bum deal. Having to bring up someone else's kid."
I wouldn't necessarily say he got a bum deal, but he certainly didn't get the credit that he deserves for raising the boy up as his own.
Mary seems to get a lot of praise for having a child of uncertain parentage though |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
