FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Rwanda
Rwanda
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Says who?" The court of appeal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Says who? The court of appeal." Just seen your post. Would've been nice for infor on this one  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unsafe , unlawful "I think you need to read the judgement | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unsafe , unlawful
I think you need to read the judgement"So do you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unsafe , unlawful
I think you need to read the judgement"Was it ruled unlawful, yes or no? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unsafe , unlawful" "I think you need to read the judgement" "Was it ruled unlawful, yes or no? " No. The scheme itself wasn't being judged in the court case, just whether Rwanda was a suitable destination, which the court found was not the case. The judgement very carefully says that they have made no findings on the scheme itself. The only decision made is that Rwanda is not a suitable destination. The judges said that any deportation to Rwanda in the current circumstances would be unlawful. It didn't say that the scheme as enacted by parliament was unlawful. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unsafe , unlawful I think you need to read the judgement Was it ruled unlawful, yes or no? No. The scheme itself wasn't being judged in the court case, just whether Rwanda was a suitable destination, which the court found was not the case. The judgement very carefully says that they have made no findings on the scheme itself. The only decision made is that Rwanda is not a suitable destination. The judges said that any deportation to Rwanda in the current circumstances would be unlawful. It didn't say that the scheme as enacted by parliament was unlawful." So we’re agreed that Rwanda is an unsuitable location to depart asylum seekers to; and as such, no deportations to Rwanda can take place? How much has this cost so far? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unsafe , unlawful I think you need to read the judgement Was it ruled unlawful, yes or no? No. The scheme itself wasn't being judged in the court case, just whether Rwanda was a suitable destination, which the court found was not the case. The judgement very carefully says that they have made no findings on the scheme itself. The only decision made is that Rwanda is not a suitable destination. The judges said that any deportation to Rwanda in the current circumstances would be unlawful. It didn't say that the scheme as enacted by parliament was unlawful." Tricksy the old law ain’t it!!!! In practice what does this mean? A) The Govt have a policy to deport to Rwanda. B) The Govt cannot deport to Rwanda as unlawful. C) The policy cannot be enacted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unsafe , unlawful I think you need to read the judgement Was it ruled unlawful, yes or no? No. The scheme itself wasn't being judged in the court case, just whether Rwanda was a suitable destination, which the court found was not the case. The judgement very carefully says that they have made no findings on the scheme itself. The only decision made is that Rwanda is not a suitable destination. The judges said that any deportation to Rwanda in the current circumstances would be unlawful. It didn't say that the scheme as enacted by parliament was unlawful. So we’re agreed that Rwanda is an unsuitable location to depart asylum seekers to; and as such, no deportations to Rwanda can take place? How much has this cost so far? " As I said on the other thread. This is simply a difference of opinion between judges. Some say its safe and others not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unsafe , unlawful
I think you need to read the judgement
Was it ruled unlawful, yes or no? "The plan itself wasn't ruled on. These particular 10 cases had a possibility of re deportation. And thus unlawful. Sort out the re deportation issue. Problem solved. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unsafe , unlawful
I think you need to read the judgement
Was it ruled unlawful, yes or no?
The plan itself wasn't ruled on.
These particular 10 cases had a possibility of re deportation. And thus unlawful. Sort out the re deportation issue.
Problem solved."If it was that simple, I reckon it would have been sorted by now, right? I’d take a bet that no asylum seekers get deported to Rwanda under this scheme. Ever. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unsafe , unlawful I think you need to read the judgement Was it ruled unlawful, yes or no? No. The scheme itself wasn't being judged in the court case, just whether Rwanda was a suitable destination, which the court found was not the case. The judgement very carefully says that they have made no findings on the scheme itself. The only decision made is that Rwanda is not a suitable destination. The judges said that any deportation to Rwanda in the current circumstances would be unlawful. It didn't say that the scheme as enacted by parliament was unlawful. Tricksy the old law ain’t it!!!! In practice what does this mean? A) The Govt have a policy to deport to Rwanda. B) The Govt cannot deport to Rwanda as unlawful. C) The policy cannot be enacted." The judged disagree with each other. There's a retained e.u law which could be scrapped which the judges have relied on. But the problem is currently that they judges believe there's still a risk of re deportation.( I'm not sure where they're getting g this from) But that's all they're worried about. So iron clad the risk of re deportation a d Rwanda can go ahead. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unsafe , unlawful I think you need to read the judgement Was it ruled unlawful, yes or no? No. The scheme itself wasn't being judged in the court case, just whether Rwanda was a suitable destination, which the court found was not the case. The judgement very carefully says that they have made no findings on the scheme itself. The only decision made is that Rwanda is not a suitable destination. The judges said that any deportation to Rwanda in the current circumstances would be unlawful. It didn't say that the scheme as enacted by parliament was unlawful. Tricksy the old law ain’t it!!!! In practice what does this mean? A) The Govt have a policy to deport to Rwanda. B) The Govt cannot deport to Rwanda as unlawful. C) The policy cannot be enacted. The judged disagree with each other. There's a retained e.u law which could be scrapped which the judges have relied on. But the problem is currently that they judges believe there's still a risk of re deportation.( I'm not sure where they're getting g this from) But that's all they're worried about. So iron clad the risk of re deportation a d Rwanda can go ahead." Are you familiar with Rwanda’s human rights record? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unsafe , unlawful I think you need to read the judgement Was it ruled unlawful, yes or no? No. The scheme itself wasn't being judged in the court case, just whether Rwanda was a suitable destination, which the court found was not the case. The judgement very carefully says that they have made no findings on the scheme itself. The only decision made is that Rwanda is not a suitable destination. The judges said that any deportation to Rwanda in the current circumstances would be unlawful. It didn't say that the scheme as enacted by parliament was unlawful. Tricksy the old law ain’t it!!!! In practice what does this mean? A) The Govt have a policy to deport to Rwanda. B) The Govt cannot deport to Rwanda as unlawful. C) The policy cannot be enacted. The judged disagree with each other. There's a retained e.u law which could be scrapped which the judges have relied on. But the problem is currently that they judges believe there's still a risk of re deportation.( I'm not sure where they're getting g this from) But that's all they're worried about. So iron clad the risk of re deportation a d Rwanda can go ahead." It's not risk of removal they're worried about, they don't agree Rwnada is a safe country. "Announcing the ruling, Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnet said he does not accept that migrants would be at risk of removal to their home countries from Rwanda - but it is not a safe country for them to housed in while their asylum claims are processed. The judge concluded: "The result is that the High Court's decision that Rwanda was a safe third country is reversed, and unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum process are corrected, removal of asylum seekers will be unlawful."" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unsafe , unlawful
I think you need to read the judgement
Was it ruled unlawful, yes or no?
The plan itself wasn't ruled on.
These particular 10 cases had a possibility of re deportation. And thus unlawful. Sort out the re deportation issue.
Problem solved."Why wasn’t this done last year? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unsafe , unlawful I think you need to read the judgement Was it ruled unlawful, yes or no? No. The scheme itself wasn't being judged in the court case, just whether Rwanda was a suitable destination, which the court found was not the case. The judgement very carefully says that they have made no findings on the scheme itself. The only decision made is that Rwanda is not a suitable destination. The judges said that any deportation to Rwanda in the current circumstances would be unlawful. It didn't say that the scheme as enacted by parliament was unlawful. Tricksy the old law ain’t it!!!! In practice what does this mean? A) The Govt have a policy to deport to Rwanda. B) The Govt cannot deport to Rwanda as unlawful. C) The policy cannot be enacted. The judged disagree with each other. There's a retained e.u law which could be scrapped which the judges have relied on. But the problem is currently that they judges believe there's still a risk of re deportation.( I'm not sure where they're getting g this from) But that's all they're worried about. So iron clad the risk of re deportation a d Rwanda can go ahead. It's not risk of removal they're worried about, they don't agree Rwnada is a safe country. "Announcing the ruling, Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnet said he does not accept that migrants would be at risk of removal to their home countries from Rwanda - but it is not a safe country for them to housed in while their asylum claims are processed. The judge concluded: "The result is that the High Court's decision that Rwanda was a safe third country is reversed, and unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum process are corrected, removal of asylum seekers will be unlawful."" " That's Burnet...he's the 1 that disagreed with the 2 judges. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are you paid to push state propaganda or does your workplace not have much to do?" He is paid by Tufton Street | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are you paid to push state propaganda or does your workplace not have much to do?" This is the written judgement.
Apparently Tufton street now controls the judges | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are you paid to push state propaganda or does your workplace not have much to do? This is the written judgement.
Apparently Tufton street now controls the judges "No, it controls the propaganda and narrative you are pushing, for example, Gully is saying that exact same things on Twitter | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are you paid to push state propaganda or does your workplace not have much to do? This is the written judgement.
Apparently Tufton street now controls the judges
No, it controls the propaganda and narrative you are pushing, for example, Gully is saying that exact same things on Twitter "Because we read the judgement? But but Tufton street.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are you paid to push state propaganda or does your workplace not have much to do? This is the written judgement.
Apparently Tufton street now controls the judges
No, it controls the propaganda and narrative you are pushing, for example, Gully is saying that exact same things on Twitter
Because we read the judgement?
But but Tufton street...."Maybe it is just a coincidence that your share and post the exact same information , is gully copying you, or are you copying Gully? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are you paid to push state propaganda or does your workplace not have much to do? This is the written judgement.
Apparently Tufton street now controls the judges
No, it controls the propaganda and narrative you are pushing, for example, Gully is saying that exact same things on Twitter
Because we read the judgement?
But but Tufton street....
Maybe it is just a coincidence that your share and post the exact same information , is gully copying you, or are you copying Gully? "I shared the judgement. It was linked on the bbc website You seem angry that people read whatjudges say | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are you paid to push state propaganda or does your workplace not have much to do? This is the written judgement.
Apparently Tufton street now controls the judges
No, it controls the propaganda and narrative you are pushing, for example, Gully is saying that exact same things on Twitter
Because we read the judgement?
But but Tufton street....
Maybe it is just a coincidence that your share and post the exact same information , is gully copying you, or are you copying Gully?
I shared the judgement.
It was linked on the bbc website
You seem angry that people read whatjudges say
"Angry? I am just stating facts, you post exactly the same information | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are you paid to push state propaganda or does your workplace not have much to do? This is the written judgement.
Apparently Tufton street now controls the judges
No, it controls the propaganda and narrative you are pushing, for example, Gully is saying that exact same things on Twitter
Because we read the judgement?
But but Tufton street....
Maybe it is just a coincidence that your share and post the exact same information , is gully copying you, or are you copying Gully?
I shared the judgement.
It was linked on the bbc website
You seem angry that people read whatjudges say
Angry? I am just stating facts, you post exactly the same information "I posted the judgement. If gully posts the judgement. Then he's probably read it. I dont know why you think the judges are Tufton street stooges. But you are away with he fairies | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are you paid to push state propaganda or does your workplace not have much to do? This is the written judgement.
Apparently Tufton street now controls the judges
No, it controls the propaganda and narrative you are pushing, for example, Gully is saying that exact same things on Twitter
Because we read the judgement?
But but Tufton street....
Maybe it is just a coincidence that your share and post the exact same information , is gully copying you, or are you copying Gully?
I shared the judgement.
It was linked on the bbc website
You seem angry that people read whatjudges say
Angry? I am just stating facts, you post exactly the same information
I posted the judgement.
If gully posts the judgement.
Then he's probably read it.
I dont know why you think the judges are Tufton street stooges. But you are away with he fairies "The narrative and the propaganda, we see you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like the gov is going to the supreme Court." Let,s hope to god they lose that aswell | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like the gov is going to the supreme Court.Let,s hope to god they lose that aswell " They don't give a shit if they win or lose. This whole waste of money has one single purpose. Which is to drum up support amongst those who thing foriegners cause all their problems. In fairness to the government. It's working a treat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like the gov is going to the supreme Court.Let,s hope to god they lose that aswell They don't give a shit if they win or lose. This whole waste of money has one single purpose. Which is to drum up support amongst those who thing foriegners cause all their problems. In fairness to the government. It's working a treat." To a point, if they can’t send anyone to Rwanda the other right wing parties are ready to pounce (they already have done) . Sun ale weak pledge to ‘Stop the Boats’ will be used against him | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unsafe , unlawful I think you need to read the judgement Was it ruled unlawful, yes or no? No. The scheme itself wasn't being judged in the court case, just whether Rwanda was a suitable destination, which the court found was not the case. The judgement very carefully says that they have made no findings on the scheme itself. The only decision made is that Rwanda is not a suitable destination. The judges said that any deportation to Rwanda in the current circumstances would be unlawful. It didn't say that the scheme as enacted by parliament was unlawful. Tricksy the old law ain’t it!!!! In practice what does this mean? A) The Govt have a policy to deport to Rwanda. B) The Govt cannot deport to Rwanda as unlawful. C) The policy cannot be enacted. The judged disagree with each other. There's a retained e.u law which could be scrapped which the judges have relied on. But the problem is currently that they judges believe there's still a risk of re deportation.( I'm not sure where they're getting g this from) But that's all they're worried about. So iron clad the risk of re deportation a d Rwanda can go ahead. It's not risk of removal they're worried about, they don't agree Rwnada is a safe country. "Announcing the ruling, Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnet said he does not accept that migrants would be at risk of removal to their home countries from Rwanda - but it is not a safe country for them to housed in while their asylum claims are processed. The judge concluded: "The result is that the High Court's decision that Rwanda was a safe third country is reversed, and unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum process are corrected, removal of asylum seekers will be unlawful."" " So, unsafe and unlawful as per the OP? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Government has itself said that the Rwanda plan is at the limit of what is acceptable in international law. Therefore any judgement will go either way. If Rwanda is unsafe, pick somewhere else. Removing economic migrants to a safe third country does not, actually, bother me. Having a third country decide if a migrant is a refugee, an asylum seeker or an economic migrant is not acceptable. That is our job. 40,000+ people will not be deported to Rwanda at £169,000 each. It would be cheaper to train enough staff to process them. It would be even cheaper to provide to provide safe routes for refugees and asylum seekers to make their applications thousands of miles away before travelling anywhere. This would end any people smuggling. If there are safe routes, then only economic migrants would need to travel to the UK without documentation. That then could be a reason to deport to a safe third country. That is the easy solution. This is not about ending irregular migration. It is about generating anger and publicity for votes." and yet you have homeless citizens that can use that money to get their lives together. Just like the US. So what about them ? That money would be better put to use at home don't you think? Your righteousness is misplaced.Just like the idiots here. You want to add to a exasperated problem when a solution is staring at you in your face. Yet you turn a blind eye just like the same people here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Government has itself said that the Rwanda plan is at the limit of what is acceptable in international law. Therefore any judgement will go either way. If Rwanda is unsafe, pick somewhere else. Removing economic migrants to a safe third country does not, actually, bother me. Having a third country decide if a migrant is a refugee, an asylum seeker or an economic migrant is not acceptable. That is our job. 40,000+ people will not be deported to Rwanda at £169,000 each. It would be cheaper to train enough staff to process them. It would be even cheaper to provide to provide safe routes for refugees and asylum seekers to make their applications thousands of miles away before travelling anywhere. This would end any people smuggling. If there are safe routes, then only economic migrants would need to travel to the UK without documentation. That then could be a reason to deport to a safe third country. That is the easy solution. This is not about ending irregular migration. It is about generating anger and publicity for votes. and yet you have homeless citizens that can use that money to get their lives together. Just like the US. So what about them ? That money would be better put to use at home don't you think? Your righteousness is misplaced.Just like the idiots here. You want to add to a exasperated problem when a solution is staring at you in your face. Yet you turn a blind eye just like the same people here. " The "solution" is to spend £169,000 per person to deport them to Rwanda and pay for them to live there in perpetuity? If you think so, then | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Government has itself said that the Rwanda plan is at the limit of what is acceptable in international law. Therefore any judgement will go either way. If Rwanda is unsafe, pick somewhere else. Removing economic migrants to a safe third country does not, actually, bother me. Having a third country decide if a migrant is a refugee, an asylum seeker or an economic migrant is not acceptable. That is our job. 40,000+ people will not be deported to Rwanda at £169,000 each. It would be cheaper to train enough staff to process them. It would be even cheaper to provide to provide safe routes for refugees and asylum seekers to make their applications thousands of miles away before travelling anywhere. This would end any people smuggling. If there are safe routes, then only economic migrants would need to travel to the UK without documentation. That then could be a reason to deport to a safe third country. That is the easy solution. This is not about ending irregular migration. It is about generating anger and publicity for votes. and yet you have homeless citizens that can use that money to get their lives together. Just like the US. So what about them ? That money would be better put to use at home don't you think? Your righteousness is misplaced.Just like the idiots here. You want to add to a exasperated problem when a solution is staring at you in your face. Yet you turn a blind eye just like the same people here. The "solution" is to spend £169,000 per person to deport them to Rwanda and pay for them to live there in perpetuity? If you think so, then "The solution is to take care of your own citizens first . Quit wasting tax payers money don't you think? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Government has itself said that the Rwanda plan is at the limit of what is acceptable in international law. Therefore any judgement will go either way. If Rwanda is unsafe, pick somewhere else. Removing economic migrants to a safe third country does not, actually, bother me. Having a third country decide if a migrant is a refugee, an asylum seeker or an economic migrant is not acceptable. That is our job. 40,000+ people will not be deported to Rwanda at £169,000 each. It would be cheaper to train enough staff to process them. It would be even cheaper to provide to provide safe routes for refugees and asylum seekers to make their applications thousands of miles away before travelling anywhere. This would end any people smuggling. If there are safe routes, then only economic migrants would need to travel to the UK without documentation. That then could be a reason to deport to a safe third country. That is the easy solution. This is not about ending irregular migration. It is about generating anger and publicity for votes. and yet you have homeless citizens that can use that money to get their lives together. Just like the US. So what about them ? That money would be better put to use at home don't you think? Your righteousness is misplaced.Just like the idiots here. You want to add to a exasperated problem when a solution is staring at you in your face. Yet you turn a blind eye just like the same people here. The "solution" is to spend £169,000 per person to deport them to Rwanda and pay for them to live there in perpetuity? If you think so, then The solution is to take care of your own citizens first . Quit wasting tax payers money don't you think? "There are thousands of irregular immigrants arriving in the UK. I find actively killing them or leaving them in a dangerous situation unacceptable. You may not. You may consider that "righteousness". What solution is "staring me in the face"? The "solution" being presented is to spend £169,000 per person to deport them to Rwanda and pay for them to live there in perpetuity. It has also been ruled by the courts that Rwanda is not a safe country and deportations should not be made there. Is the proposal a good solution or not? Is this "solution" intended to solve the problem or is it intended to make people angry? How would you prevent mass migration and people smuggling? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Government has itself said that the Rwanda plan is at the limit of what is acceptable in international law. Therefore any judgement will go either way. If Rwanda is unsafe, pick somewhere else. Removing economic migrants to a safe third country does not, actually, bother me. Having a third country decide if a migrant is a refugee, an asylum seeker or an economic migrant is not acceptable. That is our job. 40,000+ people will not be deported to Rwanda at £169,000 each. It would be cheaper to train enough staff to process them. It would be even cheaper to provide to provide safe routes for refugees and asylum seekers to make their applications thousands of miles away before travelling anywhere. This would end any people smuggling. If there are safe routes, then only economic migrants would need to travel to the UK without documentation. That then could be a reason to deport to a safe third country. That is the easy solution. This is not about ending irregular migration. It is about generating anger and publicity for votes. and yet you have homeless citizens that can use that money to get their lives together. Just like the US. So what about them ? That money would be better put to use at home don't you think? Your righteousness is misplaced.Just like the idiots here. You want to add to a exasperated problem when a solution is staring at you in your face. Yet you turn a blind eye just like the same people here. The "solution" is to spend £169,000 per person to deport them to Rwanda and pay for them to live there in perpetuity? If you think so, then The solution is to take care of your own citizens first . Quit wasting tax payers money don't you think?
There are thousands of irregular immigrants arriving in the UK.
I find actively killing them or leaving them in a dangerous situation unacceptable. You may not. You may consider that "righteousness".
What solution is "staring me in the face"?
The "solution" being presented is to spend £169,000 per person to deport them to Rwanda and pay for them to live there in perpetuity.
It has also been ruled by the courts that Rwanda is not a safe country and deportations should not be made there.
Is the proposal a good solution or not?
Is this "solution" intended to solve the problem or is it intended to make people angry?
How would you prevent mass migration and people smuggling?"So exasperating a homelessness problem is a preference to you over your own citizens. I prefer taking care of them first. Just because they take priority over anyone else and I am the evil one ? I would shut borders take care of those families here first. They are here suffering . What's the diference? Hell 169000k I can buy 2 houses here to help them .Nothing wrong in saving them first.No you just adding to a problem with no solution with your agreeance are you not ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Government has itself said that the Rwanda plan is at the limit of what is acceptable in international law. Therefore any judgement will go either way. If Rwanda is unsafe, pick somewhere else. Removing economic migrants to a safe third country does not, actually, bother me. Having a third country decide if a migrant is a refugee, an asylum seeker or an economic migrant is not acceptable. That is our job. 40,000+ people will not be deported to Rwanda at £169,000 each. It would be cheaper to train enough staff to process them. It would be even cheaper to provide to provide safe routes for refugees and asylum seekers to make their applications thousands of miles away before travelling anywhere. This would end any people smuggling. If there are safe routes, then only economic migrants would need to travel to the UK without documentation. That then could be a reason to deport to a safe third country. That is the easy solution. This is not about ending irregular migration. It is about generating anger and publicity for votes. and yet you have homeless citizens that can use that money to get their lives together. Just like the US. So what about them ? That money would be better put to use at home don't you think? Your righteousness is misplaced.Just like the idiots here. You want to add to a exasperated problem when a solution is staring at you in your face. Yet you turn a blind eye just like the same people here. " I can confirm, our government does not give a fuck about our homeless, and if they reduced immigration, well firstly the country would be less well off, but if for some reason we saved some cash. You can rest assured, the homeless community would see absolutely fuck all of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Government has itself said that the Rwanda plan is at the limit of what is acceptable in international law. Therefore any judgement will go either way. If Rwanda is unsafe, pick somewhere else. Removing economic migrants to a safe third country does not, actually, bother me. Having a third country decide if a migrant is a refugee, an asylum seeker or an economic migrant is not acceptable. That is our job. 40,000+ people will not be deported to Rwanda at £169,000 each. It would be cheaper to train enough staff to process them. It would be even cheaper to provide to provide safe routes for refugees and asylum seekers to make their applications thousands of miles away before travelling anywhere. This would end any people smuggling. If there are safe routes, then only economic migrants would need to travel to the UK without documentation. That then could be a reason to deport to a safe third country. That is the easy solution. This is not about ending irregular migration. It is about generating anger and publicity for votes." Sorry but no. Your calculations are wrong. Housing then is costing a lot more than this at the moment. You then have security risks that you don't know who they are, their intentions The cost is currently 169k. But the cost of gouging these people is about 6/7bn a year. Then you have to educate, train, they'll need care and hospital appointments in the future. All at the cost to the tax payer. Long term they will be a huge cost to the country. The benefit is in deporting them. They are being deported because they have been assessed in the uk and are deemed not tk be able to seek asylum. Any one arriving without papers will now learn they need their ID | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Government has itself said that the Rwanda plan is at the limit of what is acceptable in international law. Therefore any judgement will go either way. If Rwanda is unsafe, pick somewhere else. Removing economic migrants to a safe third country does not, actually, bother me. Having a third country decide if a migrant is a refugee, an asylum seeker or an economic migrant is not acceptable. That is our job. 40,000+ people will not be deported to Rwanda at £169,000 each. It would be cheaper to train enough staff to process them. It would be even cheaper to provide to provide safe routes for refugees and asylum seekers to make their applications thousands of miles away before travelling anywhere. This would end any people smuggling. If there are safe routes, then only economic migrants would need to travel to the UK without documentation. That then could be a reason to deport to a safe third country. That is the easy solution. This is not about ending irregular migration. It is about generating anger and publicity for votes. and yet you have homeless citizens that can use that money to get their lives together. Just like the US. So what about them ? That money would be better put to use at home don't you think? Your righteousness is misplaced.Just like the idiots here. You want to add to a exasperated problem when a solution is staring at you in your face. Yet you turn a blind eye just like the same people here. The "solution" is to spend £169,000 per person to deport them to Rwanda and pay for them to live there in perpetuity? If you think so, then The solution is to take care of your own citizens first . Quit wasting tax payers money don't you think?
There are thousands of irregular immigrants arriving in the UK.
I find actively killing them or leaving them in a dangerous situation unacceptable. You may not. You may consider that "righteousness".
What solution is "staring me in the face"?
The "solution" being presented is to spend £169,000 per person to deport them to Rwanda and pay for them to live there in perpetuity.
It has also been ruled by the courts that Rwanda is not a safe country and deportations should not be made there.
Is the proposal a good solution or not?
Is this "solution" intended to solve the problem or is it intended to make people angry?
How would you prevent mass migration and people smuggling? So exasperating a homelessness problem is a preference to you over your own citizens. I prefer taking care of them first. Just because they take priority over anyone else and I am the evil one ? I would shut borders take care of those families here first. They are here suffering . What's the diference? Hell 169000k I can buy 2 houses here to help them .Nothing wrong in saving them first.No you just adding to a problem with no solution with your agreeance are you not ? "So exasperating that you just make something up and have an opinion on situation that you don't seem to understand. I don't think that immigrants in general should be prioritised over the homeless in the UK. Who says that they are? The Government can prioritise as it sees fit. It is far from "liberal". We have apparently, "shut the borders". So did Trump "apparently". How much has been spent on "shutting the borders" rather than the homeless? Why not spend money on preventing them from leaving in the first place? Should £169,000 per person plus indefinite support payments be spent on deporting immigrants who are here instead of on the homeless? Should Government ignore the law because it wants to? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Government has itself said that the Rwanda plan is at the limit of what is acceptable in international law. Therefore any judgement will go either way. If Rwanda is unsafe, pick somewhere else. Removing economic migrants to a safe third country does not, actually, bother me. Having a third country decide if a migrant is a refugee, an asylum seeker or an economic migrant is not acceptable. That is our job. 40,000+ people will not be deported to Rwanda at £169,000 each. It would be cheaper to train enough staff to process them. It would be even cheaper to provide to provide safe routes for refugees and asylum seekers to make their applications thousands of miles away before travelling anywhere. This would end any people smuggling. If there are safe routes, then only economic migrants would need to travel to the UK without documentation. That then could be a reason to deport to a safe third country. That is the easy solution. This is not about ending irregular migration. It is about generating anger and publicity for votes. and yet you have homeless citizens that can use that money to get their lives together. Just like the US. So what about them ? That money would be better put to use at home don't you think? Your righteousness is misplaced.Just like the idiots here. You want to add to a exasperated problem when a solution is staring at you in your face. Yet you turn a blind eye just like the same people here. The "solution" is to spend £169,000 per person to deport them to Rwanda and pay for them to live there in perpetuity? If you think so, then The solution is to take care of your own citizens first . Quit wasting tax payers money don't you think?
There are thousands of irregular immigrants arriving in the UK.
I find actively killing them or leaving them in a dangerous situation unacceptable. You may not. You may consider that "righteousness".
What solution is "staring me in the face"?
The "solution" being presented is to spend £169,000 per person to deport them to Rwanda and pay for them to live there in perpetuity.
It has also been ruled by the courts that Rwanda is not a safe country and deportations should not be made there.
Is the proposal a good solution or not?
Is this "solution" intended to solve the problem or is it intended to make people angry?
How would you prevent mass migration and people smuggling? So exasperating a homelessness problem is a preference to you over your own citizens. I prefer taking care of them first. Just because they take priority over anyone else and I am the evil one ? I would shut borders take care of those families here first. They are here suffering . What's the diference? Hell 169000k I can buy 2 houses here to help them .Nothing wrong in saving them first.No you just adding to a problem with no solution with your agreeance are you not ? "When is Trump finishing that wall ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Government has itself said that the Rwanda plan is at the limit of what is acceptable in international law. Therefore any judgement will go either way. If Rwanda is unsafe, pick somewhere else. Removing economic migrants to a safe third country does not, actually, bother me. Having a third country decide if a migrant is a refugee, an asylum seeker or an economic migrant is not acceptable. That is our job. 40,000+ people will not be deported to Rwanda at £169,000 each. It would be cheaper to train enough staff to process them. It would be even cheaper to provide to provide safe routes for refugees and asylum seekers to make their applications thousands of miles away before travelling anywhere. This would end any people smuggling. If there are safe routes, then only economic migrants would need to travel to the UK without documentation. That then could be a reason to deport to a safe third country. That is the easy solution. This is not about ending irregular migration. It is about generating anger and publicity for votes. Sorry but no. Your calculations are wrong. Housing then is costing a lot more than this at the moment. You then have security risks that you don't know who they are, their intentions The cost is currently 169k. But the cost of gouging these people is about 6/7bn a year. Then you have to educate, train, they'll need care and hospital appointments in the future. All at the cost to the tax payer. Long term they will be a huge cost to the country. The benefit is in deporting them. They are being deported because they have been assessed in the uk and are deemed not tk be able to seek asylum. Any one arriving without papers will now learn they need their ID" Is that so? You actually have no idea. I am going to do one of the things that you do. Prove to me that it would be more expensive to employ more staff to process immigrants faster than to house them here. Prove to me that deportations to Rwanda will be cheaper and have a deterrent effect compared to having legal routes from where these people are coming from? They are not being deported because they are assessed in the UK. They are all being deported. Is it acceptable to you that genuine refugees and asylum seekers can remain in the UK and build a life and contribute to their new home? "The five-year trial - announced in April 2022 - would see some asylum seekers sent to Rwanda on a one-way ticket, to claim asylum there. They may be granted refugee status to stay in Rwanda. If not, they can apply to settle there on other grounds, or seek asylum in another "safe third country"." "The UK government previously said "anyone entering the UK illegally" after 1 January 2022 could be sent, with no limit on numbers. Rwanda says it can process 1,000 asylum seekers during the trial period, but has capacity for more. Under the deal, Rwanda can also ask the UK to take in some of its most vulnerable refugees." "An economic-impact assessment prepared for the government's Illegal Migration Bill estimated that removing each individual to a third country, such as Rwanda, would cost £63,000 more than keeping them in the UK." "But it [the Home Office] said it was "uncertain" how many people would be deterred because the policy was "novel and untested"." https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-61782866 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Government has itself said that the Rwanda plan is at the limit of what is acceptable in international law. Therefore any judgement will go either way. If Rwanda is unsafe, pick somewhere else. Removing economic migrants to a safe third country does not, actually, bother me. Having a third country decide if a migrant is a refugee, an asylum seeker or an economic migrant is not acceptable. That is our job. 40,000+ people will not be deported to Rwanda at £169,000 each. It would be cheaper to train enough staff to process them. It would be even cheaper to provide to provide safe routes for refugees and asylum seekers to make their applications thousands of miles away before travelling anywhere. This would end any people smuggling. If there are safe routes, then only economic migrants would need to travel to the UK without documentation. That then could be a reason to deport to a safe third country. That is the easy solution. This is not about ending irregular migration. It is about generating anger and publicity for votes. Sorry but no. Your calculations are wrong. Housing then is costing a lot more than this at the moment. You then have security risks that you don't know who they are, their intentions The cost is currently 169k. But the cost of gouging these people is about 6/7bn a year. Then you have to educate, train, they'll need care and hospital appointments in the future. All at the cost to the tax payer. Long term they will be a huge cost to the country. The benefit is in deporting them. They are being deported because they have been assessed in the uk and are deemed not tk be able to seek asylum. Any one arriving without papers will now learn they need their ID Is that so? You actually have no idea. I am going to do one of the things that you do. Prove to me that it would be more expensive to employ more staff to process immigrants faster than to house them here. Prove to me that deportations to Rwanda will be cheaper and have a deterrent effect compared to having legal routes from where these people are coming from? They are not being deported because they are assessed in the UK. They are all being deported. Is it acceptable to you that genuine refugees and asylum seekers can remain in the UK and build a life and contribute to their new home? "The five-year trial - announced in April 2022 - would see some asylum seekers sent to Rwanda on a one-way ticket, to claim asylum there. They may be granted refugee status to stay in Rwanda. If not, they can apply to settle there on other grounds, or seek asylum in another "safe third country"." "The UK government previously said "anyone entering the UK illegally" after 1 January 2022 could be sent, with no limit on numbers. Rwanda says it can process 1,000 asylum seekers during the trial period, but has capacity for more. Under the deal, Rwanda can also ask the UK to take in some of its most vulnerable refugees." "An economic-impact assessment prepared for the government's Illegal Migration Bill estimated that removing each individual to a third country, such as Rwanda, would cost £63,000 more than keeping them in the UK." "But it [the Home Office] said it was "uncertain" how many people would be deterred because the policy was "novel and untested"." https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-61782866" Not a problem Fullfact. It costs 5.6m a day to house all the illegal migrants. Across the next 2/3 years conservatively that's about 15 million 20k a day for 1 boat to patrol the sea for migrants thats 21m The uk just agreed a 500m package to France to get then to stop asylum seekers and that's only until 2025 We then have the wages of all the asylum application employees. We then have the cost of the asylum seekers who disappear thay we expense the police on. There were 12000 who missed their initial interview for asylum and possibly lost in the uk now.( though this doesn't mean they didn't turn uo later) but it's the only data the government made available. We then add in the current t cost of deporting the illegal migrants. In 2018 and 2019 the uk spent 8.2m and 9m on deportation flights. Now add in the cost of getting these asylum seekers onto the benefits system( they usually don't speak english) they aren't typically going to have high skill levels, add in the security risk. I'll let you do the maths above easy if you want. Passsst. It comes to more than 169k | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When is Trump finishing that wall ? " I know I have posted this before but I still find it absolutely fucking hilarious that Trump’s wall was built with gaps that were supposed to be too small for an adult to squeeze through (presumably so wildlife still could move about) BUT they based their measurements on the average American rather than the average Mexican (who are less fat) so Mexicans could still squeeze through!!!! Dickheads! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When is Trump finishing that wall ? I know I have posted this before but I still find it absolutely fucking hilarious that Trump’s wall was built with gaps that were supposed to be too small for an adult to squeeze through (presumably so wildlife still could move about) BUT they based their measurements on the average American rather than the average Mexican (who are less fat) so Mexicans could still squeeze through!!!! Dickheads! "Exactly, and it obviously never got finished | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Government has itself said that the Rwanda plan is at the limit of what is acceptable in international law. Therefore any judgement will go either way. If Rwanda is unsafe, pick somewhere else. Removing economic migrants to a safe third country does not, actually, bother me. Having a third country decide if a migrant is a refugee, an asylum seeker or an economic migrant is not acceptable. That is our job. 40,000+ people will not be deported to Rwanda at £169,000 each. It would be cheaper to train enough staff to process them. It would be even cheaper to provide to provide safe routes for refugees and asylum seekers to make their applications thousands of miles away before travelling anywhere. This would end any people smuggling. If there are safe routes, then only economic migrants would need to travel to the UK without documentation. That then could be a reason to deport to a safe third country. That is the easy solution. This is not about ending irregular migration. It is about generating anger and publicity for votes. Sorry but no. Your calculations are wrong. Housing then is costing a lot more than this at the moment. You then have security risks that you don't know who they are, their intentions The cost is currently 169k. But the cost of gouging these people is about 6/7bn a year. Then you have to educate, train, they'll need care and hospital appointments in the future. All at the cost to the tax payer. Long term they will be a huge cost to the country. The benefit is in deporting them. They are being deported because they have been assessed in the uk and are deemed not tk be able to seek asylum. Any one arriving without papers will now learn they need their ID Is that so? You actually have no idea. I am going to do one of the things that you do. Prove to me that it would be more expensive to employ more staff to process immigrants faster than to house them here. Prove to me that deportations to Rwanda will be cheaper and have a deterrent effect compared to having legal routes from where these people are coming from? They are not being deported because they are assessed in the UK. They are all being deported. Is it acceptable to you that genuine refugees and asylum seekers can remain in the UK and build a life and contribute to their new home? "The five-year trial - announced in April 2022 - would see some asylum seekers sent to Rwanda on a one-way ticket, to claim asylum there. They may be granted refugee status to stay in Rwanda. If not, they can apply to settle there on other grounds, or seek asylum in another "safe third country"." "The UK government previously said "anyone entering the UK illegally" after 1 January 2022 could be sent, with no limit on numbers. Rwanda says it can process 1,000 asylum seekers during the trial period, but has capacity for more. Under the deal, Rwanda can also ask the UK to take in some of its most vulnerable refugees." "An economic-impact assessment prepared for the government's Illegal Migration Bill estimated that removing each individual to a third country, such as Rwanda, would cost £63,000 more than keeping them in the UK." "But it [the Home Office] said it was "uncertain" how many people would be deterred because the policy was "novel and untested"." https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-61782866 Not a problem Fullfact. It costs 5.6m a day to house all the illegal migrants. Across the next 2/3 years conservatively that's about 15 million 20k a day for 1 boat to patrol the sea for migrants thats 21m The uk just agreed a 500m package to France to get then to stop asylum seekers and that's only until 2025 We then have the wages of all the asylum application employees. We then have the cost of the asylum seekers who disappear thay we expense the police on. There were 12000 who missed their initial interview for asylum and possibly lost in the uk now.( though this doesn't mean they didn't turn uo later) but it's the only data the government made available. We then add in the current t cost of deporting the illegal migrants. In 2018 and 2019 the uk spent 8.2m and 9m on deportation flights. Now add in the cost of getting these asylum seekers onto the benefits system( they usually don't speak english) they aren't typically going to have high skill levels, add in the security risk. I'll let you do the maths above easy if you want. Passsst. It comes to more than 169k " I find it amusing that people are cool spunking billions down the brexit toilet for absolutely nothing. Are then suddenly upset with 15 million quid for something that helps people and helps the country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are you paid to push state propaganda or does your workplace not have much to do?" At least if he was paid, it would be more understandable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Government has itself said that the Rwanda plan is at the limit of what is acceptable in international law. Therefore any judgement will go either way. If Rwanda is unsafe, pick somewhere else. Removing economic migrants to a safe third country does not, actually, bother me. Having a third country decide if a migrant is a refugee, an asylum seeker or an economic migrant is not acceptable. That is our job. 40,000+ people will not be deported to Rwanda at £169,000 each. It would be cheaper to train enough staff to process them. It would be even cheaper to provide to provide safe routes for refugees and asylum seekers to make their applications thousands of miles away before travelling anywhere. This would end any people smuggling. If there are safe routes, then only economic migrants would need to travel to the UK without documentation. That then could be a reason to deport to a safe third country. That is the easy solution. This is not about ending irregular migration. It is about generating anger and publicity for votes. Sorry but no. Your calculations are wrong. Housing then is costing a lot more than this at the moment. You then have security risks that you don't know who they are, their intentions The cost is currently 169k. But the cost of gouging these people is about 6/7bn a year. Then you have to educate, train, they'll need care and hospital appointments in the future. All at the cost to the tax payer. Long term they will be a huge cost to the country. The benefit is in deporting them. They are being deported because they have been assessed in the uk and are deemed not tk be able to seek asylum. Any one arriving without papers will now learn they need their ID Is that so? You actually have no idea. I am going to do one of the things that you do. Prove to me that it would be more expensive to employ more staff to process immigrants faster than to house them here. Prove to me that deportations to Rwanda will be cheaper and have a deterrent effect compared to having legal routes from where these people are coming from? They are not being deported because they are assessed in the UK. They are all being deported. Is it acceptable to you that genuine refugees and asylum seekers can remain in the UK and build a life and contribute to their new home? "The five-year trial - announced in April 2022 - would see some asylum seekers sent to Rwanda on a one-way ticket, to claim asylum there. They may be granted refugee status to stay in Rwanda. If not, they can apply to settle there on other grounds, or seek asylum in another "safe third country"." "The UK government previously said "anyone entering the UK illegally" after 1 January 2022 could be sent, with no limit on numbers. Rwanda says it can process 1,000 asylum seekers during the trial period, but has capacity for more. Under the deal, Rwanda can also ask the UK to take in some of its most vulnerable refugees." "An economic-impact assessment prepared for the government's Illegal Migration Bill estimated that removing each individual to a third country, such as Rwanda, would cost £63,000 more than keeping them in the UK." "But it [the Home Office] said it was "uncertain" how many people would be deterred because the policy was "novel and untested"." https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-61782866 Not a problem Fullfact. It costs 5.6m a day to house all the illegal migrants. Across the next 2/3 years conservatively that's about 15 million 20k a day for 1 boat to patrol the sea for migrants thats 21m The uk just agreed a 500m package to France to get then to stop asylum seekers and that's only until 2025 We then have the wages of all the asylum application employees. We then have the cost of the asylum seekers who disappear thay we expense the police on. There were 12000 who missed their initial interview for asylum and possibly lost in the uk now.( though this doesn't mean they didn't turn uo later) but it's the only data the government made available. We then add in the current t cost of deporting the illegal migrants. In 2018 and 2019 the uk spent 8.2m and 9m on deportation flights. Now add in the cost of getting these asylum seekers onto the benefits system( they usually don't speak english) they aren't typically going to have high skill levels, add in the security risk. I'll let you do the maths above easy if you want. Passsst. It comes to more than 169k " What point do you think that you are making? Nobody has said that it is not expensive to deal with the influx of irregular migrants. You have not addressed anything that I have written in my previous post. Asylum assessments will be made in Rwanda, not here. I stated that you would not have to pay for the housing if there were adequate staff to process applications. If there were safe routes there would only be non-qualifying economic migrants travelling by irregular means, simplifying the assessment process. Channel patrols will not stop regardless of what happens. Deportation flights will not stop regardless of what happens. The Home Office has no idea if this "solution" will change anything at all. You seem unable to state if those genuinely in need of asylum or refugees should be accepted. If the low paid working full time in the UK require state aid then we have a serious structural problem beyond immigration. I'll let you have a think. You can do whatever maths you like to make whatever point you want. Why should I do it for you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are you paid to push state propaganda or does your workplace not have much to do? At least if he was paid, it would be more understandable. " Others are paid, he just copies them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are you paid to push state propaganda or does your workplace not have much to do? At least if he was paid, it would be more understandable. Others are paid, he just copies them " Yes on my above reply. Soem 1 ese from Tufton street replied to _asyuk on twitter and I copy pasted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rwanda is a loss leader model with a twist, it deters rather than attracts new customers " This is unknown. The Home Office does not know. It is performative. Having a legal application process closer to where people live ends any pretence of irregular travel except for economic reasons. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are you paid to push state propaganda or does your workplace not have much to do? At least if he was paid, it would be more understandable. Others are paid, he just copies them Yes on my above reply. Soem 1 ese from Tufton street replied to _asyuk on twitter and I copy pasted. " At least you are now admitting it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rwanda is a loss leader model with a twist, it deters rather than attracts new customers This is unknown. The Home Office does not know. It is performative. Having a legal application process closer to where people live ends any pretence of irregular travel except for economic reasons." If we looked at this from a conservative 1 in 20 are deterred the savings would be considerable approx £1.5 billion in the first year | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This will never work until you can pick out the economic migrate. But with the cost of living going up it might deter some as its going to cost them more to live." An effective asylum vetting process solves this. Safe routes also remove (or at least drastically reduce) dangerous boat crossings. Home office know this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rwanda is a loss leader model with a twist, it deters rather than attracts new customers This is unknown. The Home Office does not know. It is performative. Having a legal application process closer to where people live ends any pretence of irregular travel except for economic reasons. If we looked at this from a conservative 1 in 20 are deterred the savings would be considerable approx £1.5 billion in the first year" If you make up some numbers you can "prove" anything. If looked at this from a conservative 1 in 0 deterred there would be a considerable increased cost. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rwanda is a loss leader model with a twist, it deters rather than attracts new customers This is unknown. The Home Office does not know. It is performative. Having a legal application process closer to where people live ends any pretence of irregular travel except for economic reasons. If we looked at this from a conservative 1 in 20 are deterred the savings would be considerable approx £1.5 billion in the first year If you make up some numbers you can "prove" anything. If looked at this from a conservative 1 in 0 deterred there would be a considerable increased cost." Would you say 1 in 50 is a better estimate? Or 1 in 100? However… my example was to saving in year 1, years 2 onwards would be predicted to return even more savings, let alone the political scoring for resolving the issue. I’m not saying it will, I’m calling out the intent | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did" Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rwanda is a loss leader model with a twist, it deters rather than attracts new customers This is unknown. The Home Office does not know. It is performative. Having a legal application process closer to where people live ends any pretence of irregular travel except for economic reasons. If we looked at this from a conservative 1 in 20 are deterred the savings would be considerable approx £1.5 billion in the first year If you make up some numbers you can "prove" anything. If looked at this from a conservative 1 in 0 deterred there would be a considerable increased cost. Would you say 1 in 50 is a better estimate? Or 1 in 100? However… my example was to saving in year 1, years 2 onwards would be predicted to return even more savings, let alone the political scoring for resolving the issue. I’m not saying it will, I’m calling out the intent " Nobody has any idea. Zero effect is equally possible. You are just making numbers up. Pick one. The Home Office has no idea. It is a political performance. As I said. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can I ask Easy and Fab a question...if the supreme court deems this lawful, will you accept that ruling? " Accepting and agreeing aren’t the same. If the Supreme Court say it’s lawful it would be foolish to say ‘no it’s not’ - but perfectly acceptable to say ‘I think it’s immoral’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can I ask Easy and Fab a question...if the supreme court deems this lawful, will you accept that ruling? " Yes. That's how the law works. I don't have to like it, but if it legal, so be it. That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal. Sl@very was legal once. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it." You say the Tories aren't stupid. They elected Liz Truss as leader. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it." Mark Francois, Lee Anderson, Andrea Jenkyns. Some are *definitely* stupid | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asylum assessments will be made in Rwanda, not here.( because they won't be being heard here without ID. They have already failed in their apllicstuon) I stated that you would not have to pay for the housing if there were adequate staff to process applications.( you would still have to pay housing. They have no mo ey no jobs) they aren't just suddenly going to be able to afford rent) If there were safe routes there would only be non-qualifying economic migrants travelling by irregular means,( we've discussed this and even _irldn a d others relented, there are legal routes. You are simply wrong) simplifying the assessment process.( it cant be simplified its a matter of proving idemtity) Channel patrols will not stop ( they began because of the sheer amount of arrivals and the lifeboat charity launching, so yes they would stop) regardless of what happens. Deportation flights will not stop regardless of what happens. The Home Office has no idea if this "solution" will change anything at all. You seem unable to state if those genuinely in need of asylum or refugees should be accepted. ^ the above is just petulant bollocks " You have written two streams of gibberish. Post the Tweet or article you're copying from or just write one coherent response. It's much, much easier. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sl@very was legal once." Sl@very was never legal in the UK. It was practiced and tolerated at some points, but the very first test case put to a court resorted in a ruling that no man could be a sl@ve. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it." I think they have gone far to far down the road with this scheme that to simply abandon it would be difficult to save face. They are in a position now that if the court's finally allow the scheme to go ahead they can enact it, which may or may not work. If the court's block it then it's simple to blame the court's and use that as a reason to drop the scheme without taking the blame | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rwanda is a loss leader model with a twist, it deters rather than attracts new customers This is unknown. The Home Office does not know. It is performative. Having a legal application process closer to where people live ends any pretence of irregular travel except for economic reasons. If we looked at this from a conservative 1 in 20 are deterred the savings would be considerable approx £1.5 billion in the first year If you make up some numbers you can "prove" anything. If looked at this from a conservative 1 in 0 deterred there would be a considerable increased cost. Would you say 1 in 50 is a better estimate? Or 1 in 100? However… my example was to saving in year 1, years 2 onwards would be predicted to return even more savings, let alone the political scoring for resolving the issue. I’m not saying it will, I’m calling out the intent Nobody has any idea. Zero effect is equally possible. You are just making numbers up. Pick one. The Home Office has no idea. It is a political performance. As I said." If it had zero effect it would be a very dark day in my opinion... It would indicate that putting in safe routes, dealing with individuals in France and any other ideas that are brought to the table, would still not be enough if they failed to obtain entry as individuals would remain undeterred. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sl@very was legal once. Sl@very was never legal in the UK. It was practiced and tolerated at some points, but the very first test case put to a court resorted in a ruling that no man could be a sl@ve." You're getting carried with your pedantry. I was not referring to sl@very being legal in the UK directly, although it was clearly tolerated and enforced, in law, in its colonies. The point is that something being legal does not make it acceptable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it. I think they have gone far to far down the road with this scheme that to simply abandon it would be difficult to save face. They are in a position now that if the court's finally allow the scheme to go ahead they can enact it, which may or may not work. If the court's block it then it's simple to blame the court's and use that as a reason to drop the scheme without taking the blame" This is very much the situation,I think. What's important is making lots of noise. It's not a genuine solution. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rwanda is a loss leader model with a twist, it deters rather than attracts new customers This is unknown. The Home Office does not know. It is performative. Having a legal application process closer to where people live ends any pretence of irregular travel except for economic reasons. If we looked at this from a conservative 1 in 20 are deterred the savings would be considerable approx £1.5 billion in the first year If you make up some numbers you can "prove" anything. If looked at this from a conservative 1 in 0 deterred there would be a considerable increased cost. Would you say 1 in 50 is a better estimate? Or 1 in 100? However… my example was to saving in year 1, years 2 onwards would be predicted to return even more savings, let alone the political scoring for resolving the issue. I’m not saying it will, I’m calling out the intent Nobody has any idea. Zero effect is equally possible. You are just making numbers up. Pick one. The Home Office has no idea. It is a political performance. As I said. If it had zero effect it would be a very dark day in my opinion... It would indicate that putting in safe routes, dealing with individuals in France and any other ideas that are brought to the table, would still not be enough if they failed to obtain entry as individuals would remain undeterred. " This does not correlate. Deporting all irregular immigrants to Rwanda regardless of their reasons to come here (that is the policy) does not imply that safe routes from France or anywhere else will not work. That option is not even being discussed. If you have applied and failed, and I am sure biometrically recorded, then attempting to travel will see you deported. It will have to be to a safe country, as accepted by the law. I suspect that will be tricky as the governments that would accept this sort of arrangement may not be the ones that would be considered as such. That and finding an airline to fly them there. There's an eye watering reputational damage premium to pay. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sl@very was legal once." "Sl@very was never legal in the UK. It was practiced and tolerated at some points, but the very first test case put to a court resorted in a ruling that no man could be a sl@ve." "I was not referring to sl@very being legal in the UK directly, although it was clearly tolerated and enforced, in law, in its colonies." Well you were responding to someone asking you whether you accepted decisions of the UK Supreme Court, so it certainly looked like you were saying that sl@very was legal in the UK at some point. Perhaps you should be more careful when making such inflammatory statements. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sl@very was legal once. Sl@very was never legal in the UK. It was practiced and tolerated at some points, but the very first test case put to a court resorted in a ruling that no man could be a sl@ve. I was not referring to sl@very being legal in the UK directly, although it was clearly tolerated and enforced, in law, in its colonies. Well you were responding to someone asking you whether you accepted decisions of the UK Supreme Court, so it certainly looked like you were saying that sl@very was legal in the UK at some point. Perhaps you should be more careful when making such inflammatory statements." ...and here you are underlining the fact that this is pedantry. You ignored the actual point, again to obsess on the detail. You even removed it from the reply. "The point is that something being legal does not make it acceptable." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sl@very was legal once." "Sl@very was never legal in the UK. It was practiced and tolerated at some points, but the very first test case put to a court resorted in a ruling that no man could be a sl@ve." "I was not referring to sl@very being legal in the UK directly, although it was clearly tolerated and enforced, in law, in its colonies." "Well you were responding to someone asking you whether you accepted decisions of the UK Supreme Court, so it certainly looked like you were saying that sl@very was legal in the UK at some point. Perhaps you should be more careful when making such inflammatory statements." "...and here you are underlining the fact that this is pedantry. You ignored the actual point, again to obsess on the detail." And you are missing my point, which is that making statements which are untrue, tends to undermine your argument. If you're going to write an obvious lie to underline your point, you can't really blame readers for thinking that maybe your point isn't very valid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sl@very was legal once. Sl@very was never legal in the UK. It was practiced and tolerated at some points, but the very first test case put to a court resorted in a ruling that no man could be a sl@ve. I was not referring to sl@very being legal in the UK directly, although it was clearly tolerated and enforced, in law, in its colonies. Well you were responding to someone asking you whether you accepted decisions of the UK Supreme Court, so it certainly looked like you were saying that sl@very was legal in the UK at some point. Perhaps you should be more careful when making such inflammatory statements. ...and here you are underlining the fact that this is pedantry. You ignored the actual point, again to obsess on the detail. And you are missing my point, which is that making statements which are untrue, tends to undermine your argument. If you're going to write an obvious lie to underline your point, you can't really blame readers for thinking that maybe your point isn't very valid." You are the only person who has decided to dwell on the UK specifically not having laws regarding sl@very. Sl@very was legal and enforced all over the world including British territories. Way to go doubling down. You've even shifted your own position from looking like" to accusations of lying. I will say it again though because you don't seem able to accept it: "The point is that something being legal does not make it acceptable." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sl@very was legal once. Sl@very was never legal in the UK. It was practiced and tolerated at some points, but the very first test case put to a court resorted in a ruling that no man could be a sl@ve. I was not referring to sl@very being legal in the UK directly, although it was clearly tolerated and enforced, in law, in its colonies. Well you were responding to someone asking you whether you accepted decisions of the UK Supreme Court, so it certainly looked like you were saying that sl@very was legal in the UK at some point. Perhaps you should be more careful when making such inflammatory statements. ...and here you are underlining the fact that this is pedantry. You ignored the actual point, again to obsess on the detail. And you are missing my point, which is that making statements which are untrue, tends to undermine your argument. If you're going to write an obvious lie to underline your point, you can't really blame readers for thinking that maybe your point isn't very valid. You are the only person who has decided to dwell on the UK specifically not having laws regarding sl@very. Sl@very was legal and enforced all over the world including British territories. Way to go doubling down. You've even shifted your own position from looking like" to accusations of lying. I will say it again though because you don't seem able to accept it: "The point is that something being legal does not make it acceptable."" He's not the only person, I just decided to stay out of it 
You replied to something in regards to the UKSC so yeah, UK.
You said slav ery was legal, it wasn't.
I do agree with your last sentence though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sl@very was legal once. Sl@very was never legal in the UK. It was practiced and tolerated at some points, but the very first test case put to a court resorted in a ruling that no man could be a sl@ve. I was not referring to sl@very being legal in the UK directly, although it was clearly tolerated and enforced, in law, in its colonies. Well you were responding to someone asking you whether you accepted decisions of the UK Supreme Court, so it certainly looked like you were saying that sl@very was legal in the UK at some point. Perhaps you should be more careful when making such inflammatory statements. ...and here you are underlining the fact that this is pedantry. You ignored the actual point, again to obsess on the detail. And you are missing my point, which is that making statements which are untrue, tends to undermine your argument. If you're going to write an obvious lie to underline your point, you can't really blame readers for thinking that maybe your point isn't very valid. You are the only person who has decided to dwell on the UK specifically not having laws regarding sl@very. Sl@very was legal and enforced all over the world including British territories. Way to go doubling down. You've even shifted your own position from looking like" to accusations of lying. I will say it again though because you don't seem able to accept it: "The point is that something being legal does not make it acceptable." He's not the only person, I just decided to stay out of it
You replied to something in regards to the UKSC so yeah, UK.
You said slav ery was legal, it wasn't.
I do agree with your last sentence though. "It was not legal anywhere ever? It was illustrating a general point, not some specific detail. Hence pedantry. Hence the BS arguments about the precise meanings of individual words. However, if you like | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sl@very was legal once. Sl@very was never legal in the UK. It was practiced and tolerated at some points, but the very first test case put to a court resorted in a ruling that no man could be a sl@ve. I was not referring to sl@very being legal in the UK directly, although it was clearly tolerated and enforced, in law, in its colonies. Well you were responding to someone asking you whether you accepted decisions of the UK Supreme Court, so it certainly looked like you were saying that sl@very was legal in the UK at some point. Perhaps you should be more careful when making such inflammatory statements. ...and here you are underlining the fact that this is pedantry. You ignored the actual point, again to obsess on the detail. And you are missing my point, which is that making statements which are untrue, tends to undermine your argument. If you're going to write an obvious lie to underline your point, you can't really blame readers for thinking that maybe your point isn't very valid. You are the only person who has decided to dwell on the UK specifically not having laws regarding sl@very. Sl@very was legal and enforced all over the world including British territories. Way to go doubling down. You've even shifted your own position from looking like" to accusations of lying. I will say it again though because you don't seem able to accept it: "The point is that something being legal does not make it acceptable." He's not the only person, I just decided to stay out of it
You replied to something in regards to the UKSC so yeah, UK.
You said slav ery was legal, it wasn't.
I do agree with your last sentence though.
It was not legal anywhere ever?
It was illustrating a general point, not some specific detail. Hence pedantry. Hence the BS arguments about the precise meanings of individual words.
However, if you like "You said it was legal to try to enhance your point. That is not a minor detail, which is pedantry. You continue to 'lie' and you'll be called out, it's quite simple. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sl@very was legal once. Sl@very was never legal in the UK. It was practiced and tolerated at some points, but the very first test case put to a court resorted in a ruling that no man could be a sl@ve. I was not referring to sl@very being legal in the UK directly, although it was clearly tolerated and enforced, in law, in its colonies. Well you were responding to someone asking you whether you accepted decisions of the UK Supreme Court, so it certainly looked like you were saying that sl@very was legal in the UK at some point. Perhaps you should be more careful when making such inflammatory statements. ...and here you are underlining the fact that this is pedantry. You ignored the actual point, again to obsess on the detail. And you are missing my point, which is that making statements which are untrue, tends to undermine your argument. If you're going to write an obvious lie to underline your point, you can't really blame readers for thinking that maybe your point isn't very valid. You are the only person who has decided to dwell on the UK specifically not having laws regarding sl@very. Sl@very was legal and enforced all over the world including British territories. Way to go doubling down. You've even shifted your own position from looking like" to accusations of lying. I will say it again though because you don't seem able to accept it: "The point is that something being legal does not make it acceptable." He's not the only person, I just decided to stay out of it
You replied to something in regards to the UKSC so yeah, UK.
You said slav ery was legal, it wasn't.
I do agree with your last sentence though.
It was not legal anywhere ever?
It was illustrating a general point, not some specific detail. Hence pedantry. Hence the BS arguments about the precise meanings of individual words.
However, if you like
You said it was legal to try to enhance your point.
That is not a minor detail, which is pedantry.
You continue to 'lie' and you'll be called out, it's quite simple."This is all it's about to so many people on here. Some detail. Some accusation. The point doesn't matter. The intent doesn't matter. Only your chosen interpretation. I said what I meant: "Sl@very was legal once" I did not write: "Sl@very was legal here once" It doesn't actually matter where or when. It was to illustrate the point that the most immoral of acts can be "legal". Of you want to continue to be petty, be petty. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is all it's about to so many people on here. Some detail. Some accusation. The point doesn't matter. The intent doesn't matter. Only your chosen interpretation." Of course the intent doesn't matter. The intent is in your head. The rest of us have to interpret what you meant from the words that you used. When you're communicating with just words, the ones you choose are important. You need to guide the reader to the understanding that you intend. If you find that people regularly fail to follow your point, you should consider whether your communication skills might need improving. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is all it's about to so many people on here. Some detail. Some accusation. The point doesn't matter. The intent doesn't matter. Only your chosen interpretation. Of course the intent doesn't matter. The intent is in your head. The rest of us have to interpret what you meant from the words that you used. When you're communicating with just words, the ones you choose are important. You need to guide the reader to the understanding that you intend. If you find that people regularly fail to follow your point, you should consider whether your communication skills might need improving." ...or learn how to read the words. You are certainly aware now, even if you couldn't work it out earlier,that a general point is being made. You are perfectly aware of this, but pedantry and your eagerness to "win some micro victory, gets you to quibbling about something being or not being legal specifically in the UK. My words very specifically did not mention the UK. Was sl@very legal once, not specifically in the UK? Is the UK relevant at all if the only point made was and is that things can be legal and completely wrong? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is all it's about to so many people on here. Some detail. Some accusation. The point doesn't matter. The intent doesn't matter. Only your chosen interpretation. Of course the intent doesn't matter. The intent is in your head. The rest of us have to interpret what you meant from the words that you used. When you're communicating with just words, the ones you choose are important. You need to guide the reader to the understanding that you intend. If you find that people regularly fail to follow your point, you should consider whether your communication skills might need improving." "That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal. Sl@very was legal once." How does the context seem in your head? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is all it's about to so many people on here. Some detail. Some accusation. The point doesn't matter. The intent doesn't matter. Only your chosen interpretation." "Of course the intent doesn't matter. The intent is in your head. The rest of us have to interpret what you meant from the words that you used. When you're communicating with just words, the ones you choose are important. You need to guide the reader to the understanding that you intend. If you find that people regularly fail to follow your point, you should consider whether your communication skills might need improving." ""That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal. Sl@very was legal once." How does the context seem in your head?" How about we use the whole quote: "Can I ask Easy and Fab a question...if the supreme court deems this lawful, will you accept that ruling?" "Yes. That's how the law works. I don't have to like it, but if it legal, so be it. That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal. Sl@very was legal once." How does the context seem now? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is all it's about to so many people on here. Some detail. Some accusation. The point doesn't matter. The intent doesn't matter. Only your chosen interpretation. Of course the intent doesn't matter. The intent is in your head. The rest of us have to interpret what you meant from the words that you used. When you're communicating with just words, the ones you choose are important. You need to guide the reader to the understanding that you intend. If you find that people regularly fail to follow your point, you should consider whether your communication skills might need improving. "That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal. Sl@very was legal once." How does the context seem in your head? How about we use the whole quote: "Can I ask Easy and Fab a question...if the supreme court deems this lawful, will you accept that ruling?" "Yes. That's how the law works. I don't have to like it, but if it legal, so be it. That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal. Sl@very was legal once." How does the context seem now?" Ot seems exactly like a stated. The law says whatever it says but is not necessarily correct, just as sl@very wasn't. Too complicated a concept? I tell you what, rewrite it so that it's acceptable to you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is all it's about to so many people on here. Some detail. Some accusation. The point doesn't matter. The intent doesn't matter. Only your chosen interpretation. Of course the intent doesn't matter. The intent is in your head. The rest of us have to interpret what you meant from the words that you used. When you're communicating with just words, the ones you choose are important. You need to guide the reader to the understanding that you intend. If you find that people regularly fail to follow your point, you should consider whether your communication skills might need improving. "That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal. Sl@very was legal once." How does the context seem in your head? How about we use the whole quote: "Can I ask Easy and Fab a question...if the supreme court deems this lawful, will you accept that ruling?" "Yes. That's how the law works. I don't have to like it, but if it legal, so be it. That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal. Sl@very was legal once." How does the context seem now? Ot seems exactly like a stated. The law says whatever it says but is not necessarily correct, just as sl@very wasn't. Too complicated a concept? I tell you what, rewrite it so that it's acceptable to you." Of the law says something then it is correct, maybe not to you, or morally, but correct nonetheless. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is all it's about to so many people on here. Some detail. Some accusation. The point doesn't matter. The intent doesn't matter. Only your chosen interpretation. Of course the intent doesn't matter. The intent is in your head. The rest of us have to interpret what you meant from the words that you used. When you're communicating with just words, the ones you choose are important. You need to guide the reader to the understanding that you intend. If you find that people regularly fail to follow your point, you should consider whether your communication skills might need improving. "That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal. Sl@very was legal once." How does the context seem in your head? How about we use the whole quote: "Can I ask Easy and Fab a question...if the supreme court deems this lawful, will you accept that ruling?" "Yes. That's how the law works. I don't have to like it, but if it legal, so be it. That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal. Sl@very was legal once." How does the context seem now? Ot seems exactly like a stated. The law says whatever it says but is not necessarily correct, just as sl@very wasn't. Too complicated a concept? I tell you what, rewrite it so that it's acceptable to you. Of the law says something then it is correct, maybe not to you, or morally, but correct nonetheless. " I said it doesn't make it morally correct. I didn't disagree that it was legally correct. Rewrite it so that it makes sense for you. Correct my grammar and vocabulary as you see fit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is all it's about to so many people on here. Some detail. Some accusation. The point doesn't matter. The intent doesn't matter. Only your chosen interpretation. Of course the intent doesn't matter. The intent is in your head. The rest of us have to interpret what you meant from the words that you used. When you're communicating with just words, the ones you choose are important. You need to guide the reader to the understanding that you intend. If you find that people regularly fail to follow your point, you should consider whether your communication skills might need improving. "That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal. Sl@very was legal once." How does the context seem in your head? How about we use the whole quote: "Can I ask Easy and Fab a question...if the supreme court deems this lawful, will you accept that ruling?" "Yes. That's how the law works. I don't have to like it, but if it legal, so be it. That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal. Sl@very was legal once." How does the context seem now? Ot seems exactly like a stated. The law says whatever it says but is not necessarily correct, just as sl@very wasn't. Too complicated a concept? I tell you what, rewrite it so that it's acceptable to you. Of the law says something then it is correct, maybe not to you, or morally, but correct nonetheless. I said it doesn't make it morally correct. I didn't disagree that it was legally correct. Rewrite it so that it makes sense for you. Correct my grammar and vocabulary as you see fit." I literally just replied to your statement of "The law says whatever it says but is not necessarily correct, just as sl@very wasn't." I've told you before, if you're loose with words, you'll be picked up on it, not really sure why you continue to dig your heels in after making incorrect statements. I won't rewrite it, what you said was wrong, end of. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is all it's about to so many people on here. Some detail. Some accusation. The point doesn't matter. The intent doesn't matter. Only your chosen interpretation. Of course the intent doesn't matter. The intent is in your head. The rest of us have to interpret what you meant from the words that you used. When you're communicating with just words, the ones you choose are important. You need to guide the reader to the understanding that you intend. If you find that people regularly fail to follow your point, you should consider whether your communication skills might need improving. "That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal. Sl@very was legal once." How does the context seem in your head? How about we use the whole quote: "Can I ask Easy and Fab a question...if the supreme court deems this lawful, will you accept that ruling?" "Yes. That's how the law works. I don't have to like it, but if it legal, so be it. That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal. Sl@very was legal once." How does the context seem now? Ot seems exactly like a stated. The law says whatever it says but is not necessarily correct, just as sl@very wasn't. Too complicated a concept? I tell you what, rewrite it so that it's acceptable to you. Of the law says something then it is correct, maybe not to you, or morally, but correct nonetheless. I said it doesn't make it morally correct. I didn't disagree that it was legally correct. Rewrite it so that it makes sense for you. Correct my grammar and vocabulary as you see fit. I literally just replied to your statement of "The law says whatever it says but is not necessarily correct, just as sl@very wasn't." I've told you before, if you're loose with words, you'll be picked up on it, not really sure why you continue to dig your heels in after making incorrect statements. I won't rewrite it, what you said was wrong, end of." "Correct" as in "right and proper". None of this actually requires any explanation unless all you want to do is argue which appears to be what you need to do. It's all perfectly understandable. If you are unable to write it in a more acceptable way, then there is clearly nothing to "pick up" on. Rewrite my original comment so that I understand what makes sense to you, otherwise you are just criticising constructively. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is all it's about to so many people on here. Some detail. Some accusation. The point doesn't matter. The intent doesn't matter. Only your chosen interpretation. Of course the intent doesn't matter. The intent is in your head. The rest of us have to interpret what you meant from the words that you used. When you're communicating with just words, the ones you choose are important. You need to guide the reader to the understanding that you intend. If you find that people regularly fail to follow your point, you should consider whether your communication skills might need improving. "That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal. Sl@very was legal once." How does the context seem in your head? How about we use the whole quote: "Can I ask Easy and Fab a question...if the supreme court deems this lawful, will you accept that ruling?" "Yes. That's how the law works. I don't have to like it, but if it legal, so be it. That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal. Sl@very was legal once." How does the context seem now? Ot seems exactly like a stated. The law says whatever it says but is not necessarily correct, just as sl@very wasn't. Too complicated a concept? I tell you what, rewrite it so that it's acceptable to you. Of the law says something then it is correct, maybe not to you, or morally, but correct nonetheless. I said it doesn't make it morally correct. I didn't disagree that it was legally correct. Rewrite it so that it makes sense for you. Correct my grammar and vocabulary as you see fit. I literally just replied to your statement of "The law says whatever it says but is not necessarily correct, just as sl@very wasn't." I've told you before, if you're loose with words, you'll be picked up on it, not really sure why you continue to dig your heels in after making incorrect statements. I won't rewrite it, what you said was wrong, end of. "Correct" as in "right and proper". None of this actually requires any explanation unless all you want to do is argue which appears to be what you need to do. It's all perfectly understandable. If you are unable to write it in a more acceptable way, then there is clearly nothing to "pick up" on. Rewrite my original comment so that I understand what makes sense to you, otherwise you are just criticising constructively." I don't need to do anything. As you just said 'constructive criticism', you can clearly see it, you now just need to learn how to accept it. It would make our conversations much easier. I won't rewrite it because it was wrong, I wouldn't have made such an outlandish statement in the first place. You could've used many other things that were legal but you went for the most shocking, that's a standard tactic, unfortunately those are often icorrect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rewrite my original comment so that I understand what makes sense to you, otherwise you are just criticising constructively." ************************************* Isn't 'constructive criticism' the way forward..? (You might edit your replies to save an immense amount of scrolling down to read your replies.......) THAT... was my constructively critical view. Eva | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I tell you what, rewrite it so that it's acceptable to you." How can I do that? I don't know what you're trying to say. You were responding to a question about whether you would accept a potential ruling from the UK Supreme Court on the Rwanda scheme. You said "I don't have to like it, but if it legal, so be it. That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal". It seems to me that you're trying to say that you find the Rwanda scheme immoral, and that no legal ruling is going to change your mind. You may instead be saying that you will accept the legal ruling, even if it goes the wrong way for you. In subsequent posts you changed it to "something being legal does not make it acceptable", which is a very different statement. 'Acceptable' and 'morally correct' are not the same thing. In the original post you then made a reference to sl@very to amplify your point. That fits with the 'morally correct' point, because it was never morally correct. However, it doesn't fit the 'acceptable' argument. Quite clearly sl@very was acceptable to many, if not the majority, of people a few hundred years ago. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I tell you what, rewrite it so that it's acceptable to you. How can I do that? I don't know what you're trying to say. You were responding to a question about whether you would accept a potential ruling from the UK Supreme Court on the Rwanda scheme. You said "I don't have to like it, but if it legal, so be it. That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal". It seems to me that you're trying to say that you find the Rwanda scheme immoral, and that no legal ruling is going to change your mind. You may instead be saying that you will accept the legal ruling, even if it goes the wrong way for you. In subsequent posts you changed it to "something being legal does not make it acceptable", which is a very different statement. 'Acceptable' and 'morally correct' are not the same thing. In the original post you then made a reference to sl@very to amplify your point. That fits with the 'morally correct' point, because it was never morally correct. However, it doesn't fit the 'acceptable' argument. Quite clearly sl@very was acceptable to many, if not the majority, of people a few hundred years ago. " Just because a law is law, it doesn’t have to be acceptable (which is all but interchangeable with morally correct IMO) The recent law changes on public protests are unacceptable. It would be foolish to say ‘I don’t accept these laws exist’ - because they clearly do. However that’s not the same as saying ‘I accept these laws’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is all it's about to so many people on here. Some detail. Some accusation. The point doesn't matter. The intent doesn't matter. Only your chosen interpretation. Of course the intent doesn't matter. The intent is in your head. The rest of us have to interpret what you meant from the words that you used. When you're communicating with just words, the ones you choose are important. You need to guide the reader to the understanding that you intend. If you find that people regularly fail to follow your point, you should consider whether your communication skills might need improving. "That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal. Sl@very was legal once." How does the context seem in your head? How about we use the whole quote: "Can I ask Easy and Fab a question...if the supreme court deems this lawful, will you accept that ruling?" "Yes. That's how the law works. I don't have to like it, but if it legal, so be it. That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal. Sl@very was legal once." How does the context seem now? Ot seems exactly like a stated. The law says whatever it says but is not necessarily correct, just as sl@very wasn't. Too complicated a concept? I tell you what, rewrite it so that it's acceptable to you. Of the law says something then it is correct, maybe not to you, or morally, but correct nonetheless. I said it doesn't make it morally correct. I didn't disagree that it was legally correct. Rewrite it so that it makes sense for you. Correct my grammar and vocabulary as you see fit. I literally just replied to your statement of "The law says whatever it says but is not necessarily correct, just as sl@very wasn't." I've told you before, if you're loose with words, you'll be picked up on it, not really sure why you continue to dig your heels in after making incorrect statements. I won't rewrite it, what you said was wrong, end of. "Correct" as in "right and proper". None of this actually requires any explanation unless all you want to do is argue which appears to be what you need to do. It's all perfectly understandable. If you are unable to write it in a more acceptable way, then there is clearly nothing to "pick up" on. Rewrite my original comment so that I understand what makes sense to you, otherwise you are just criticising constructively. I don't need to do anything. As you just said 'constructive criticism', you can clearly see it, you now just need to learn how to accept it. It would make our conversations much easier. I won't rewrite it because it was wrong, I wouldn't have made such an outlandish statement in the first place. You could've used many other things that were legal but you went for the most shocking, that's a standard tactic, unfortunately those are often icorrect." Criticising unconstructively*. Typo like "icorrect". I would have thought obviously, but clearly not. You were able to understand the original phrasing and point I was making enough to say that it was unclear, but unable to suggest how the grammar and vocabulary may be improved. Now you're upset that I used a clear, unambiguous subject as an example because it was "shocking". It is not "outlandish". It is true, isn't it? Suggest something better then. Again and again you complain and criticise but can contribute nothing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I tell you what, rewrite it so that it's acceptable to you. How can I do that? I don't know what you're trying to say. You were responding to a question about whether you would accept a potential ruling from the UK Supreme Court on the Rwanda scheme. You said "I don't have to like it, but if it legal, so be it. That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal". It seems to me that you're trying to say that you find the Rwanda scheme immoral, and that no legal ruling is going to change your mind. You may instead be saying that you will accept the legal ruling, even if it goes the wrong way for you. In subsequent posts you changed it to "something being legal does not make it acceptable", which is a very different statement. 'Acceptable' and 'morally correct' are not the same thing. In the original post you then made a reference to sl@very to amplify your point. That fits with the 'morally correct' point, because it was never morally correct. However, it doesn't fit the 'acceptable' argument. Quite clearly sl@very was acceptable to many, if not the majority, of people a few hundred years ago. " This is a while new level of doubling-down pedantry. You correct what I am writing and then say that you don't understand it? Sl@very not legal in the UK. True. I never wrote that. Sl@very was legal in many other places. I did write that. "Sl@very was legal". Sl@very was and is immoral. Immoral things are acceptable to some though. Not to me. I'm writing. My opinion was asked. Now, rewrite my first post to your satisfaction to demonstrate a well written response or accept that you are just arguing for argument's sake. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just because a law is law, it doesn’t have to be acceptable (which is all but interchangeable with morally correct IMO) The recent law changes on public protests are unacceptable. It would be foolish to say ‘I don’t accept these laws exist’ - because they clearly do. However that’s not the same as saying ‘I accept these laws’" ************************************* In my opinion........ "The REASONS requiring the recent law changes on public protests were unacceptable". Hence, the required amendments. Stupid idiots shooting themselves in both feet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now, rewrite my first post to your satisfaction to demonstrate a well written response or accept that you are just arguing for argument's sake." I've already given you 2 examples. Presumably neither of those captured what you were thinking. How do you expect me to come up with better wording when it's still unclear what you wanted to say? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just because a law is law, it doesn’t have to be acceptable (which is all but interchangeable with morally correct IMO) The recent law changes on public protests are unacceptable. It would be foolish to say ‘I don’t accept these laws exist’ - because they clearly do. However that’s not the same as saying ‘I accept these laws’ ************************************* In my opinion........ "The REASONS requiring the recent law changes on public protests were unacceptable". Hence, the required amendments. Stupid idiots shooting themselves in both feet." ‘Required amendments’? Was it a ‘required amendment’ to police noise levels at protests? To remove amplification equipment from peaceful protestors? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just because a law is law, it doesn’t have to be acceptable (which is all but interchangeable with morally correct IMO) The recent law changes on public protests are unacceptable. It would be foolish to say ‘I don’t accept these laws exist’ - because they clearly do. However that’s not the same as saying ‘I accept these laws’ ************************************* In my opinion........ "The REASONS requiring the recent law changes on public protests were unacceptable". Hence, the required amendments. Stupid idiots shooting themselves in both feet. ‘Required amendments’? Was it a ‘required amendment’ to police noise levels at protests? To remove amplification equipment from peaceful protestors? " Yes. "In my opinion"...., which I am perfectly entitled to give, just as much as you are yours. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just because a law is law, it doesn’t have to be acceptable (which is all but interchangeable with morally correct IMO) The recent law changes on public protests are unacceptable. It would be foolish to say ‘I don’t accept these laws exist’ - because they clearly do. However that’s not the same as saying ‘I accept these laws’ ************************************* In my opinion........ "The REASONS requiring the recent law changes on public protests were unacceptable". Hence, the required amendments. Stupid idiots shooting themselves in both feet. ‘Required amendments’? Was it a ‘required amendment’ to police noise levels at protests? To remove amplification equipment from peaceful protestors? Yes. "In my opinion"...., which I am perfectly entitled to give, just as much as you are yours." You are absolutely entitled to your opinion that we should inch ever closer to a police state and clamp down on peaceful protest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just because a law is law, it doesn’t have to be acceptable (which is all but interchangeable with morally correct IMO) The recent law changes on public protests are unacceptable. It would be foolish to say ‘I don’t accept these laws exist’ - because they clearly do. However that’s not the same as saying ‘I accept these laws’ ************************************* In my opinion........ "The REASONS requiring the recent law changes on public protests were unacceptable". Hence, the required amendments. Stupid idiots shooting themselves in both feet. ‘Required amendments’? Was it a ‘required amendment’ to police noise levels at protests? To remove amplification equipment from peaceful protestors? Yes. "In my opinion"...., which I am perfectly entitled to give, just as much as you are yours. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion that we should inch ever closer to a police state and clamp down on peaceful protest." ********************************** A "police state" seems to be the ultimate aim of certain protestors, I assume....?!? Now, I need to concentate on my career demands, so I shall bid you good morning. Eva X | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now, rewrite my first post to your satisfaction to demonstrate a well written response or accept that you are just arguing for argument's sake. I've already given you 2 examples. Presumably neither of those captured what you were thinking. How do you expect me to come up with better wording when it's still unclear what you wanted to say?" No, you have given me reasons why you don't think what I wrote was acceptable. "Laws are written and are adhered to or challenged by the legal process. Laws can be legal and be immoral (in my opinion). Immorality is not acceptable (in my opinion). Sl@very is an example of something that was legal in many places but is not moral or acceptable." Is this still ambiguous? Simply write a substitute for my original post or this latest version in your own words. Then I will know how to express my opinion so that everyone can understand it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've already given you 2 examples. Presumably neither of those captured what you were thinking." "No, you have given me reasons why you don't think what I wrote was acceptable. "Laws are written and are adhered to or challenged by the legal process. Laws can be legal and be immoral (in my opinion). Immorality is not acceptable (in my opinion). Sl@very is an example of something that was legal in many places but is not moral or acceptable." Is this still ambiguous? Simply write a substitute for my original post or this latest version in your own words. Then I will know how to express my opinion so that everyone can understand it." As I said in my previous post, You were responding to a question about whether you would accept a potential ruling from the UK Supreme Court on the Rwanda scheme. You said "I don't have to like it, but if it legal, so be it. That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal". It seems to me that you were trying to say "I find the Rwanda scheme immoral, and no legal ruling is going to change my mind on that point (though I will accept the ruling)". Sadly, in your latest post you said "Laws can be legal and be immoral (in my opinion). Immorality is not acceptable (in my opinion)". This rather suggests that you won't accept the ruling. So clearly I still don't understand what you were saying. Either that or you've changed your position since the original post. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've already given you 2 examples. Presumably neither of those captured what you were thinking. No, you have given me reasons why you don't think what I wrote was acceptable. "Laws are written and are adhered to or challenged by the legal process. Laws can be legal and be immoral (in my opinion). Immorality is not acceptable (in my opinion). Sl@very is an example of something that was legal in many places but is not moral or acceptable." Is this still ambiguous? Simply write a substitute for my original post or this latest version in your own words. Then I will know how to express my opinion so that everyone can understand it. As I said in my previous post, You were responding to a question about whether you would accept a potential ruling from the UK Supreme Court on the Rwanda scheme. You said "I don't have to like it, but if it legal, so be it. That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal". It seems to me that you were trying to say "I find the Rwanda scheme immoral, and no legal ruling is going to change my mind on that point (though I will accept the ruling)". Sadly, in your latest post you said "Laws can be legal and be immoral (in my opinion). Immorality is not acceptable (in my opinion)". This rather suggests that you won't accept the ruling. So clearly I still don't understand what you were saying. Either that or you've changed your position since the original post." Them you really are unable to distinguish rules and law with right and wrong. Bad laws exist and have existed. They should be abolished or changed. Accepting a specific law exists and the consequences of it being applied is not the same as accepting that that law is good for individuals or society. You really are unable to grasp that? That does explain why you become so obsessed with details because the wider concepts clearly elude you. Any law correctly drafted, passed by Parliament and given Royal ascent is technically "legal". That does not make it the correct thing to do or good. You are saying that where sl@very was legal it should have been accepted and unchallenged. There is no other interpretation of what you have written. The only alternative to this is disregarding the law and behave as if it does not exist. That is the only way, in your interpretation, to not accept it. Is an immoral activity unacceptable to you? If there is a law that legalises that immoral activity do you accept that the law exists and will be enforced? Can you answer "yes" to both questions? If you cannot, then you have chosen to argue yourself into a paradox that does not exist. You will have done that because you are a pedant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've already given you 2 examples. Presumably neither of those captured what you were thinking. No, you have given me reasons why you don't think what I wrote was acceptable. "Laws are written and are adhered to or challenged by the legal process. Laws can be legal and be immoral (in my opinion). Immorality is not acceptable (in my opinion). Sl@very is an example of something that was legal in many places but is not moral or acceptable." Is this still ambiguous? Simply write a substitute for my original post or this latest version in your own words. Then I will know how to express my opinion so that everyone can understand it. As I said in my previous post, You were responding to a question about whether you would accept a potential ruling from the UK Supreme Court on the Rwanda scheme. You said "I don't have to like it, but if it legal, so be it. That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal". It seems to me that you were trying to say "I find the Rwanda scheme immoral, and no legal ruling is going to change my mind on that point (though I will accept the ruling)". Sadly, in your latest post you said "Laws can be legal and be immoral (in my opinion). Immorality is not acceptable (in my opinion)". This rather suggests that you won't accept the ruling. So clearly I still don't understand what you were saying. Either that or you've changed your position since the original post. Them you really are unable to distinguish rules and law with right and wrong. Bad laws exist and have existed. They should be abolished or changed. Accepting a specific law exists and the consequences of it being applied is not the same as accepting that that law is good for individuals or society. You really are unable to grasp that? That does explain why you become so obsessed with details because the wider concepts clearly elude you. Any law correctly drafted, passed by Parliament and given Royal ascent is technically "legal". That does not make it the correct thing to do or good. You are saying that where sl@very was legal it should have been accepted and unchallenged. There is no other interpretation of what you have written. The only alternative to this is disregarding the law and behave as if it does not exist. That is the only way, in your interpretation, to not accept it. Is an immoral activity unacceptable to you? If there is a law that legalises that immoral activity do you accept that the law exists and will be enforced? Can you answer "yes" to both questions? If you cannot, then you have chosen to argue yourself into a paradox that does not exist. You will have done that because you are a pedant." This - totally. On another thread a poster said that if the electorate lobbied for and successfully won (in parliament) the return of the death penalty, it would be fine as it’s the will of the people - this is incorrect IMO. Yes, theoretically the death penalty could return, perhaps indeed with the backing of a majority of the electorate, but that wouldn’t make it right for the state to take a life. Ever. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've already given you 2 examples. Presumably neither of those captured what you were thinking. No, you have given me reasons why you don't think what I wrote was acceptable. "Laws are written and are adhered to or challenged by the legal process. Laws can be legal and be immoral (in my opinion). Immorality is not acceptable (in my opinion). Sl@very is an example of something that was legal in many places but is not moral or acceptable." Is this still ambiguous? Simply write a substitute for my original post or this latest version in your own words. Then I will know how to express my opinion so that everyone can understand it. As I said in my previous post, You were responding to a question about whether you would accept a potential ruling from the UK Supreme Court on the Rwanda scheme. You said "I don't have to like it, but if it legal, so be it. That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal". It seems to me that you were trying to say "I find the Rwanda scheme immoral, and no legal ruling is going to change my mind on that point (though I will accept the ruling)". Sadly, in your latest post you said "Laws can be legal and be immoral (in my opinion). Immorality is not acceptable (in my opinion)". This rather suggests that you won't accept the ruling. So clearly I still don't understand what you were saying. Either that or you've changed your position since the original post. Them you really are unable to distinguish rules and law with right and wrong. Bad laws exist and have existed. They should be abolished or changed. Accepting a specific law exists and the consequences of it being applied is not the same as accepting that that law is good for individuals or society. You really are unable to grasp that? That does explain why you become so obsessed with details because the wider concepts clearly elude you. Any law correctly drafted, passed by Parliament and given Royal ascent is technically "legal". That does not make it the correct thing to do or good. You are saying that where sl@very was legal it should have been accepted and unchallenged. There is no other interpretation of what you have written. The only alternative to this is disregarding the law and behave as if it does not exist. That is the only way, in your interpretation, to not accept it. Is an immoral activity unacceptable to you? If there is a law that legalises that immoral activity do you accept that the law exists and will be enforced? Can you answer "yes" to both questions? If you cannot, then you have chosen to argue yourself into a paradox that does not exist. You will have done that because you are a pedant. This - totally. On another thread a poster said that if the electorate lobbied for and successfully won (in parliament) the return of the death penalty, it would be fine as it’s the will of the people - this is incorrect IMO. Yes, theoretically the death penalty could return, perhaps indeed with the backing of a majority of the electorate, but that wouldn’t make it right for the state to take a life. Ever. " What you are both failing to miss is 'in your opinion' This is what happens round here, on both sides, people don't agree with someone else's opinion so turn to insults. People don't listen to others, go on real long winded rants and then end with insults, it completely nullifies what they're trying to say. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've already given you 2 examples. Presumably neither of those captured what you were thinking. No, you have given me reasons why you don't think what I wrote was acceptable. "Laws are written and are adhered to or challenged by the legal process. Laws can be legal and be immoral (in my opinion). Immorality is not acceptable (in my opinion). Sl@very is an example of something that was legal in many places but is not moral or acceptable." Is this still ambiguous? Simply write a substitute for my original post or this latest version in your own words. Then I will know how to express my opinion so that everyone can understand it. As I said in my previous post, You were responding to a question about whether you would accept a potential ruling from the UK Supreme Court on the Rwanda scheme. You said "I don't have to like it, but if it legal, so be it. That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal". It seems to me that you were trying to say "I find the Rwanda scheme immoral, and no legal ruling is going to change my mind on that point (though I will accept the ruling)". Sadly, in your latest post you said "Laws can be legal and be immoral (in my opinion). Immorality is not acceptable (in my opinion)". This rather suggests that you won't accept the ruling. So clearly I still don't understand what you were saying. Either that or you've changed your position since the original post. Them you really are unable to distinguish rules and law with right and wrong. Bad laws exist and have existed. They should be abolished or changed. Accepting a specific law exists and the consequences of it being applied is not the same as accepting that that law is good for individuals or society. You really are unable to grasp that? That does explain why you become so obsessed with details because the wider concepts clearly elude you. Any law correctly drafted, passed by Parliament and given Royal ascent is technically "legal". That does not make it the correct thing to do or good. You are saying that where sl@very was legal it should have been accepted and unchallenged. There is no other interpretation of what you have written. The only alternative to this is disregarding the law and behave as if it does not exist. That is the only way, in your interpretation, to not accept it. Is an immoral activity unacceptable to you? If there is a law that legalises that immoral activity do you accept that the law exists and will be enforced? Can you answer "yes" to both questions? If you cannot, then you have chosen to argue yourself into a paradox that does not exist. You will have done that because you are a pedant. This - totally. On another thread a poster said that if the electorate lobbied for and successfully won (in parliament) the return of the death penalty, it would be fine as it’s the will of the people - this is incorrect IMO. Yes, theoretically the death penalty could return, perhaps indeed with the backing of a majority of the electorate, but that wouldn’t make it right for the state to take a life. Ever. What you are both failing to miss is 'in your opinion' This is what happens round here, on both sides, people don't agree with someone else's opinion so turn to insults. People don't listen to others, go on real long winded rants and then end with insults, it completely nullifies what they're trying to say." Did I turn to insults, then?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've already given you 2 examples. Presumably neither of those captured what you were thinking. No, you have given me reasons why you don't think what I wrote was acceptable. "Laws are written and are adhered to or challenged by the legal process. Laws can be legal and be immoral (in my opinion). Immorality is not acceptable (in my opinion). Sl@very is an example of something that was legal in many places but is not moral or acceptable." Is this still ambiguous? Simply write a substitute for my original post or this latest version in your own words. Then I will know how to express my opinion so that everyone can understand it. As I said in my previous post, You were responding to a question about whether you would accept a potential ruling from the UK Supreme Court on the Rwanda scheme. You said "I don't have to like it, but if it legal, so be it. That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal". It seems to me that you were trying to say "I find the Rwanda scheme immoral, and no legal ruling is going to change my mind on that point (though I will accept the ruling)". Sadly, in your latest post you said "Laws can be legal and be immoral (in my opinion). Immorality is not acceptable (in my opinion)". This rather suggests that you won't accept the ruling. So clearly I still don't understand what you were saying. Either that or you've changed your position since the original post. Them you really are unable to distinguish rules and law with right and wrong. Bad laws exist and have existed. They should be abolished or changed. Accepting a specific law exists and the consequences of it being applied is not the same as accepting that that law is good for individuals or society. You really are unable to grasp that? That does explain why you become so obsessed with details because the wider concepts clearly elude you. Any law correctly drafted, passed by Parliament and given Royal ascent is technically "legal". That does not make it the correct thing to do or good. You are saying that where sl@very was legal it should have been accepted and unchallenged. There is no other interpretation of what you have written. The only alternative to this is disregarding the law and behave as if it does not exist. That is the only way, in your interpretation, to not accept it. Is an immoral activity unacceptable to you? If there is a law that legalises that immoral activity do you accept that the law exists and will be enforced? Can you answer "yes" to both questions? If you cannot, then you have chosen to argue yourself into a paradox that does not exist. You will have done that because you are a pedant. This - totally. On another thread a poster said that if the electorate lobbied for and successfully won (in parliament) the return of the death penalty, it would be fine as it’s the will of the people - this is incorrect IMO. Yes, theoretically the death penalty could return, perhaps indeed with the backing of a majority of the electorate, but that wouldn’t make it right for the state to take a life. Ever. What you are both failing to miss is 'in your opinion' This is what happens round here, on both sides, people don't agree with someone else's opinion so turn to insults. People don't listen to others, go on real long winded rants and then end with insults, it completely nullifies what they're trying to say. Did I turn to insults, then? "You haven't on this thread. I specifically said 'people'. Only the first sentence was aimed directly at you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've already given you 2 examples. Presumably neither of those captured what you were thinking. No, you have given me reasons why you don't think what I wrote was acceptable. "Laws are written and are adhered to or challenged by the legal process. Laws can be legal and be immoral (in my opinion). Immorality is not acceptable (in my opinion). Sl@very is an example of something that was legal in many places but is not moral or acceptable." Is this still ambiguous? Simply write a substitute for my original post or this latest version in your own words. Then I will know how to express my opinion so that everyone can understand it. As I said in my previous post, You were responding to a question about whether you would accept a potential ruling from the UK Supreme Court on the Rwanda scheme. You said "I don't have to like it, but if it legal, so be it. That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal". It seems to me that you were trying to say "I find the Rwanda scheme immoral, and no legal ruling is going to change my mind on that point (though I will accept the ruling)". Sadly, in your latest post you said "Laws can be legal and be immoral (in my opinion). Immorality is not acceptable (in my opinion)". This rather suggests that you won't accept the ruling. So clearly I still don't understand what you were saying. Either that or you've changed your position since the original post. Them you really are unable to distinguish rules and law with right and wrong. Bad laws exist and have existed. They should be abolished or changed. Accepting a specific law exists and the consequences of it being applied is not the same as accepting that that law is good for individuals or society. You really are unable to grasp that? That does explain why you become so obsessed with details because the wider concepts clearly elude you. Any law correctly drafted, passed by Parliament and given Royal ascent is technically "legal". That does not make it the correct thing to do or good. You are saying that where sl@very was legal it should have been accepted and unchallenged. There is no other interpretation of what you have written. The only alternative to this is disregarding the law and behave as if it does not exist. That is the only way, in your interpretation, to not accept it. Is an immoral activity unacceptable to you? If there is a law that legalises that immoral activity do you accept that the law exists and will be enforced? Can you answer "yes" to both questions? If you cannot, then you have chosen to argue yourself into a paradox that does not exist. You will have done that because you are a pedant. This - totally. On another thread a poster said that if the electorate lobbied for and successfully won (in parliament) the return of the death penalty, it would be fine as it’s the will of the people - this is incorrect IMO. Yes, theoretically the death penalty could return, perhaps indeed with the backing of a majority of the electorate, but that wouldn’t make it right for the state to take a life. Ever. What you are both failing to miss is 'in your opinion' This is what happens round here, on both sides, people don't agree with someone else's opinion so turn to insults. People don't listen to others, go on real long winded rants and then end with insults, it completely nullifies what they're trying to say. Did I turn to insults, then?
You haven't on this thread. I specifically said 'people'. Only the first sentence was aimed directly at you.""Is an immoral [in your opinion] activity unacceptable to you? If there is a law that legalises that immoral activity do you accept that the law exists and will be enforced? Can you answer "yes" to both questions?" Will you refuse to answer again because it makes your repeated position a bit awkward? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've already given you 2 examples. Presumably neither of those captured what you were thinking. No, you have given me reasons why you don't think what I wrote was acceptable. "Laws are written and are adhered to or challenged by the legal process. Laws can be legal and be immoral (in my opinion). Immorality is not acceptable (in my opinion). Sl@very is an example of something that was legal in many places but is not moral or acceptable." Is this still ambiguous? Simply write a substitute for my original post or this latest version in your own words. Then I will know how to express my opinion so that everyone can understand it. As I said in my previous post, You were responding to a question about whether you would accept a potential ruling from the UK Supreme Court on the Rwanda scheme. You said "I don't have to like it, but if it legal, so be it. That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal". It seems to me that you were trying to say "I find the Rwanda scheme immoral, and no legal ruling is going to change my mind on that point (though I will accept the ruling)". Sadly, in your latest post you said "Laws can be legal and be immoral (in my opinion). Immorality is not acceptable (in my opinion)". This rather suggests that you won't accept the ruling. So clearly I still don't understand what you were saying. Either that or you've changed your position since the original post. Them you really are unable to distinguish rules and law with right and wrong. Bad laws exist and have existed. They should be abolished or changed. Accepting a specific law exists and the consequences of it being applied is not the same as accepting that that law is good for individuals or society. You really are unable to grasp that? That does explain why you become so obsessed with details because the wider concepts clearly elude you. Any law correctly drafted, passed by Parliament and given Royal ascent is technically "legal". That does not make it the correct thing to do or good. You are saying that where sl@very was legal it should have been accepted and unchallenged. There is no other interpretation of what you have written. The only alternative to this is disregarding the law and behave as if it does not exist. That is the only way, in your interpretation, to not accept it. Is an immoral activity unacceptable to you? If there is a law that legalises that immoral activity do you accept that the law exists and will be enforced? Can you answer "yes" to both questions? If you cannot, then you have chosen to argue yourself into a paradox that does not exist. You will have done that because you are a pedant. This - totally. On another thread a poster said that if the electorate lobbied for and successfully won (in parliament) the return of the death penalty, it would be fine as it’s the will of the people - this is incorrect IMO. Yes, theoretically the death penalty could return, perhaps indeed with the backing of a majority of the electorate, but that wouldn’t make it right for the state to take a life. Ever. What you are both failing to miss is 'in your opinion' This is what happens round here, on both sides, people don't agree with someone else's opinion so turn to insults. People don't listen to others, go on real long winded rants and then end with insults, it completely nullifies what they're trying to say. Did I turn to insults, then?
You haven't on this thread. I specifically said 'people'. Only the first sentence was aimed directly at you.
"Is an immoral [in your opinion] activity unacceptable to you?
If there is a law that legalises that immoral activity do you accept that the law exists and will be enforced?
Can you answer "yes" to both questions?"
Will you refuse to answer again because it makes your repeated position a bit awkward?"You were doing well and then had to end with your last sentence, it's what I was just describing 
Of course I can answer yes to both, everyone can. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've already given you 2 examples. Presumably neither of those captured what you were thinking. No, you have given me reasons why you don't think what I wrote was acceptable. "Laws are written and are adhered to or challenged by the legal process. Laws can be legal and be immoral (in my opinion). Immorality is not acceptable (in my opinion). Sl@very is an example of something that was legal in many places but is not moral or acceptable." Is this still ambiguous? Simply write a substitute for my original post or this latest version in your own words. Then I will know how to express my opinion so that everyone can understand it. As I said in my previous post, You were responding to a question about whether you would accept a potential ruling from the UK Supreme Court on the Rwanda scheme. You said "I don't have to like it, but if it legal, so be it. That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal". It seems to me that you were trying to say "I find the Rwanda scheme immoral, and no legal ruling is going to change my mind on that point (though I will accept the ruling)". Sadly, in your latest post you said "Laws can be legal and be immoral (in my opinion). Immorality is not acceptable (in my opinion)". This rather suggests that you won't accept the ruling. So clearly I still don't understand what you were saying. Either that or you've changed your position since the original post. Them you really are unable to distinguish rules and law with right and wrong. Bad laws exist and have existed. They should be abolished or changed. Accepting a specific law exists and the consequences of it being applied is not the same as accepting that that law is good for individuals or society. You really are unable to grasp that? That does explain why you become so obsessed with details because the wider concepts clearly elude you. Any law correctly drafted, passed by Parliament and given Royal ascent is technically "legal". That does not make it the correct thing to do or good. You are saying that where sl@very was legal it should have been accepted and unchallenged. There is no other interpretation of what you have written. The only alternative to this is disregarding the law and behave as if it does not exist. That is the only way, in your interpretation, to not accept it. Is an immoral activity unacceptable to you? If there is a law that legalises that immoral activity do you accept that the law exists and will be enforced? Can you answer "yes" to both questions? If you cannot, then you have chosen to argue yourself into a paradox that does not exist. You will have done that because you are a pedant. This - totally. On another thread a poster said that if the electorate lobbied for and successfully won (in parliament) the return of the death penalty, it would be fine as it’s the will of the people - this is incorrect IMO. Yes, theoretically the death penalty could return, perhaps indeed with the backing of a majority of the electorate, but that wouldn’t make it right for the state to take a life. Ever. What you are both failing to miss is 'in your opinion' This is what happens round here, on both sides, people don't agree with someone else's opinion so turn to insults. People don't listen to others, go on real long winded rants and then end with insults, it completely nullifies what they're trying to say. Did I turn to insults, then?
You haven't on this thread. I specifically said 'people'. Only the first sentence was aimed directly at you.
"Is an immoral [in your opinion] activity unacceptable to you?
If there is a law that legalises that immoral activity do you accept that the law exists and will be enforced?
Can you answer "yes" to both questions?"
Will you refuse to answer again because it makes your repeated position a bit awkward?
You were doing well and then had to end with your last sentence, it's what I was just describing
Of course I can answer yes to both, everyone can."You refused to answer previously. In which case, what was the issue with my initial response to the question I was asked about my opinion on the matter? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've already given you 2 examples. Presumably neither of those captured what you were thinking. No, you have given me reasons why you don't think what I wrote was acceptable. "Laws are written and are adhered to or challenged by the legal process. Laws can be legal and be immoral (in my opinion). Immorality is not acceptable (in my opinion). Sl@very is an example of something that was legal in many places but is not moral or acceptable." Is this still ambiguous? Simply write a substitute for my original post or this latest version in your own words. Then I will know how to express my opinion so that everyone can understand it. As I said in my previous post, You were responding to a question about whether you would accept a potential ruling from the UK Supreme Court on the Rwanda scheme. You said "I don't have to like it, but if it legal, so be it. That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal". It seems to me that you were trying to say "I find the Rwanda scheme immoral, and no legal ruling is going to change my mind on that point (though I will accept the ruling)". Sadly, in your latest post you said "Laws can be legal and be immoral (in my opinion). Immorality is not acceptable (in my opinion)". This rather suggests that you won't accept the ruling. So clearly I still don't understand what you were saying. Either that or you've changed your position since the original post. Them you really are unable to distinguish rules and law with right and wrong. Bad laws exist and have existed. They should be abolished or changed. Accepting a specific law exists and the consequences of it being applied is not the same as accepting that that law is good for individuals or society. You really are unable to grasp that? That does explain why you become so obsessed with details because the wider concepts clearly elude you. Any law correctly drafted, passed by Parliament and given Royal ascent is technically "legal". That does not make it the correct thing to do or good. You are saying that where sl@very was legal it should have been accepted and unchallenged. There is no other interpretation of what you have written. The only alternative to this is disregarding the law and behave as if it does not exist. That is the only way, in your interpretation, to not accept it. Is an immoral activity unacceptable to you? If there is a law that legalises that immoral activity do you accept that the law exists and will be enforced? Can you answer "yes" to both questions? If you cannot, then you have chosen to argue yourself into a paradox that does not exist. You will have done that because you are a pedant. This - totally. On another thread a poster said that if the electorate lobbied for and successfully won (in parliament) the return of the death penalty, it would be fine as it’s the will of the people - this is incorrect IMO. Yes, theoretically the death penalty could return, perhaps indeed with the backing of a majority of the electorate, but that wouldn’t make it right for the state to take a life. Ever. What you are both failing to miss is 'in your opinion' This is what happens round here, on both sides, people don't agree with someone else's opinion so turn to insults. People don't listen to others, go on real long winded rants and then end with insults, it completely nullifies what they're trying to say. Did I turn to insults, then?
You haven't on this thread. I specifically said 'people'. Only the first sentence was aimed directly at you.
"Is an immoral [in your opinion] activity unacceptable to you?
If there is a law that legalises that immoral activity do you accept that the law exists and will be enforced?
Can you answer "yes" to both questions?"
Will you refuse to answer again because it makes your repeated position a bit awkward?
You were doing well and then had to end with your last sentence, it's what I was just describing
Of course I can answer yes to both, everyone can.
You refused to answer previously.
In which case, what was the issue with my initial response to the question I was asked about my opinion on the matter?"We've been over why I refused to rewrite your statement. I've already told you what was wrong with your statement, you refuse to acknowledge it, its no drama. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Them you really are unable to distinguish rules and law with right and wrong. ... You are saying that where sl@very was legal it should have been accepted and unchallenged. There is no other interpretation of what you have written. ... " You asked me to rephrase what I thought you were saying, so I did, and now you're treating those words as if they were mine. I can't see any point in continuing if you're going to continue willfully 'misunderstanding' everything I post. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unsafe , unlawful "But to reference responses on another thread if you can make money out of it, who care | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unsafe , unlawful
But to reference responses on another thread if you can make money out of it, who care"Who is making money out of it ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Them you really are unable to distinguish rules and law with right and wrong. ... You are saying that where sl@very was legal it should have been accepted and unchallenged. There is no other interpretation of what you have written. ... You asked me to rephrase what I thought you were saying, so I did, and now you're treating those words as if they were mine. I can't see any point in continuing if you're going to continue willfully 'misunderstanding' everything I post." Original question: "Can I ask Easy and Fab a question...if the supreme court deems this lawful, will you accept that ruling?" My answer: "Yes. That's how the law works. I don't have to like it, but if it legal, so be it. That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal. Sl@very was legal once." You rewrote this as: "I find the Rwanda scheme immoral, and no legal ruling is going to change my mind on that point (though I will accept the ruling)" I answered generally. Do you need me to answer specifically for it to be clear? Your initial complaint was that sl@very was not legal in the UK. I never said that it was. It was an example of something legal being immoral. What do you actually object to that requires this many words? Your last objection seems to be that objecting to something immoral is the same as not accepting a legal judgement based on the law as it stands. That's why I asked the simple question that you can't see any point in answering: "Is an immoral [in your opinion] activity unacceptable to you? If there is a law that legalises that immoral activity do you accept that the law exists and will be enforced? Can you answer "yes" to both questions?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unsafe , unlawful
But to reference responses on another thread if you can make money out of it, who care
Who is making money out of it ? "You tell me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've already given you 2 examples. Presumably neither of those captured what you were thinking. No, you have given me reasons why you don't think what I wrote was acceptable. "Laws are written and are adhered to or challenged by the legal process. Laws can be legal and be immoral (in my opinion). Immorality is not acceptable (in my opinion). Sl@very is an example of something that was legal in many places but is not moral or acceptable." Is this still ambiguous? Simply write a substitute for my original post or this latest version in your own words. Then I will know how to express my opinion so that everyone can understand it. As I said in my previous post, You were responding to a question about whether you would accept a potential ruling from the UK Supreme Court on the Rwanda scheme. You said "I don't have to like it, but if it legal, so be it. That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal". It seems to me that you were trying to say "I find the Rwanda scheme immoral, and no legal ruling is going to change my mind on that point (though I will accept the ruling)". Sadly, in your latest post you said "Laws can be legal and be immoral (in my opinion). Immorality is not acceptable (in my opinion)". This rather suggests that you won't accept the ruling. So clearly I still don't understand what you were saying. Either that or you've changed your position since the original post. Them you really are unable to distinguish rules and law with right and wrong. Bad laws exist and have existed. They should be abolished or changed. Accepting a specific law exists and the consequences of it being applied is not the same as accepting that that law is good for individuals or society. You really are unable to grasp that? That does explain why you become so obsessed with details because the wider concepts clearly elude you. Any law correctly drafted, passed by Parliament and given Royal ascent is technically "legal". That does not make it the correct thing to do or good. You are saying that where sl@very was legal it should have been accepted and unchallenged. There is no other interpretation of what you have written. The only alternative to this is disregarding the law and behave as if it does not exist. That is the only way, in your interpretation, to not accept it. Is an immoral activity unacceptable to you? If there is a law that legalises that immoral activity do you accept that the law exists and will be enforced? Can you answer "yes" to both questions? If you cannot, then you have chosen to argue yourself into a paradox that does not exist. You will have done that because you are a pedant. This - totally. On another thread a poster said that if the electorate lobbied for and successfully won (in parliament) the return of the death penalty, it would be fine as it’s the will of the people - this is incorrect IMO. Yes, theoretically the death penalty could return, perhaps indeed with the backing of a majority of the electorate, but that wouldn’t make it right for the state to take a life. Ever. What you are both failing to miss is 'in your opinion' This is what happens round here, on both sides, people don't agree with someone else's opinion so turn to insults. People don't listen to others, go on real long winded rants and then end with insults, it completely nullifies what they're trying to say. Did I turn to insults, then?
You haven't on this thread. I specifically said 'people'. Only the first sentence was aimed directly at you.
"Is an immoral [in your opinion] activity unacceptable to you?
If there is a law that legalises that immoral activity do you accept that the law exists and will be enforced?
Can you answer "yes" to both questions?"
Will you refuse to answer again because it makes your repeated position a bit awkward?
You were doing well and then had to end with your last sentence, it's what I was just describing
Of course I can answer yes to both, everyone can.
You refused to answer previously.
In which case, what was the issue with my initial response to the question I was asked about my opinion on the matter?
We've been over why I refused to rewrite your statement.
I've already told you what was wrong with your statement, you refuse to acknowledge it, its no drama."Your initial complaint was that sl@very was not legal in the UK. I never said that it was. It was an example of something legal being immoral. It was not "outlandish" to demonstrate how far legality and morality and the correct way to treat somebody can lie. You refuse to acknowledge it, its no drama | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've already given you 2 examples. Presumably neither of those captured what you were thinking. No, you have given me reasons why you don't think what I wrote was acceptable. "Laws are written and are adhered to or challenged by the legal process. Laws can be legal and be immoral (in my opinion). Immorality is not acceptable (in my opinion). Sl@very is an example of something that was legal in many places but is not moral or acceptable." Is this still ambiguous? Simply write a substitute for my original post or this latest version in your own words. Then I will know how to express my opinion so that everyone can understand it. As I said in my previous post, You were responding to a question about whether you would accept a potential ruling from the UK Supreme Court on the Rwanda scheme. You said "I don't have to like it, but if it legal, so be it. That doesn't make it morally correct, it just makes it legal". It seems to me that you were trying to say "I find the Rwanda scheme immoral, and no legal ruling is going to change my mind on that point (though I will accept the ruling)". Sadly, in your latest post you said "Laws can be legal and be immoral (in my opinion). Immorality is not acceptable (in my opinion)". This rather suggests that you won't accept the ruling. So clearly I still don't understand what you were saying. Either that or you've changed your position since the original post. Them you really are unable to distinguish rules and law with right and wrong. Bad laws exist and have existed. They should be abolished or changed. Accepting a specific law exists and the consequences of it being applied is not the same as accepting that that law is good for individuals or society. You really are unable to grasp that? That does explain why you become so obsessed with details because the wider concepts clearly elude you. Any law correctly drafted, passed by Parliament and given Royal ascent is technically "legal". That does not make it the correct thing to do or good. You are saying that where sl@very was legal it should have been accepted and unchallenged. There is no other interpretation of what you have written. The only alternative to this is disregarding the law and behave as if it does not exist. That is the only way, in your interpretation, to not accept it. Is an immoral activity unacceptable to you? If there is a law that legalises that immoral activity do you accept that the law exists and will be enforced? Can you answer "yes" to both questions? If you cannot, then you have chosen to argue yourself into a paradox that does not exist. You will have done that because you are a pedant. This - totally. On another thread a poster said that if the electorate lobbied for and successfully won (in parliament) the return of the death penalty, it would be fine as it’s the will of the people - this is incorrect IMO. Yes, theoretically the death penalty could return, perhaps indeed with the backing of a majority of the electorate, but that wouldn’t make it right for the state to take a life. Ever. What you are both failing to miss is 'in your opinion' This is what happens round here, on both sides, people don't agree with someone else's opinion so turn to insults. People don't listen to others, go on real long winded rants and then end with insults, it completely nullifies what they're trying to say. Did I turn to insults, then?
You haven't on this thread. I specifically said 'people'. Only the first sentence was aimed directly at you.
"Is an immoral [in your opinion] activity unacceptable to you?
If there is a law that legalises that immoral activity do you accept that the law exists and will be enforced?
Can you answer "yes" to both questions?"
Will you refuse to answer again because it makes your repeated position a bit awkward?
You were doing well and then had to end with your last sentence, it's what I was just describing
Of course I can answer yes to both, everyone can.
You refused to answer previously.
In which case, what was the issue with my initial response to the question I was asked about my opinion on the matter?
We've been over why I refused to rewrite your statement.
I've already told you what was wrong with your statement, you refuse to acknowledge it, its no drama.
Your initial complaint was that sl@very was not legal in the UK. I never said that it was. It was an example of something legal being immoral. It was not "outlandish" to demonstrate how far legality and morality and the correct way to treat somebody can lie.
You refuse to acknowledge it, its no drama "As I've already said, you were responding to a post about a UK ruling, fuck sake, its really not hard to read. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it." And yet every poll seemingly shows there's a majority for the scheme | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it. And yet every poll seemingly shows there's a majority for the scheme" ‘Seemingly ‘ ?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it. And yet every poll seemingly shows there's a majority for the scheme ‘Seemingly ‘ ?? "Yes. Most recent polls within the last year broadly show support for the plan more than opposition. Without taking I to context weighting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it. And yet every poll seemingly shows there's a majority for the scheme ‘Seemingly ‘ ??
Yes. Most recent polls within the last year broadly show support for the plan more than opposition. Without taking I to context weighting."It all sounds a bit vague, any polls done after it was ruled to be unlawful | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it. And yet every poll seemingly shows there's a majority for the scheme ‘Seemingly ‘ ??
Yes. Most recent polls within the last year broadly show support for the plan more than opposition. Without taking I to context weighting.
It all sounds a bit vague, any polls done after it was ruled to be unlawful "Yes. But the legality of it wouldn't change perception. As discussed and you are well aware. The plan itself didn't form part of the judgement | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it. And yet every poll seemingly shows there's a majority for the scheme ‘Seemingly ‘ ??
Yes. Most recent polls within the last year broadly show support for the plan more than opposition. Without taking I to context weighting.
It all sounds a bit vague, any polls done after it was ruled to be unlawful
Yes.
But the legality of it wouldn't change perception.
As discussed and you are well aware. The plan itself didn't form part of the judgement "It’s unlawful | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it. And yet every poll seemingly shows there's a majority for the scheme ‘Seemingly ‘ ??
Yes. Most recent polls within the last year broadly show support for the plan more than opposition. Without taking I to context weighting.
It all sounds a bit vague, any polls done after it was ruled to be unlawful
Yes.
But the legality of it wouldn't change perception.
As discussed and you are well aware. The plan itself didn't form part of the judgement
It’s unlawful "I posted the judgement on here. Feel free to read it. What the judges wrote doesn't agree. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it. And yet every poll seemingly shows there's a majority for the scheme ‘Seemingly ‘ ??
Yes. Most recent polls within the last year broadly show support for the plan more than opposition. Without taking I to context weighting.
It all sounds a bit vague, any polls done after it was ruled to be unlawful
Yes.
But the legality of it wouldn't change perception.
As discussed and you are well aware. The plan itself didn't form part of the judgement
It’s unlawful
I posted the judgement on here.
Feel free to read it. What the judges wrote doesn't agree."It’s unlawful, if it isn’t, then why aren’t they sending people to Rwanda and going to the Supreme Court | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it. And yet every poll seemingly shows there's a majority for the scheme ‘Seemingly ‘ ??
Yes. Most recent polls within the last year broadly show support for the plan more than opposition. Without taking I to context weighting.
It all sounds a bit vague, any polls done after it was ruled to be unlawful
Yes.
But the legality of it wouldn't change perception.
As discussed and you are well aware. The plan itself didn't form part of the judgement
It’s unlawful
I posted the judgement on here.
Feel free to read it. What the judges wrote doesn't agree.
It’s unlawful, if it isn’t, then why aren’t they sending people to Rwanda and going to the Supreme Court "You were told this. The decision relates to the timing of the case. Originally from 2022. And didn't reserve judgement on the scheme itself. But the possibility of re deportation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it. And yet every poll seemingly shows there's a majority for the scheme ‘Seemingly ‘ ??
Yes. Most recent polls within the last year broadly show support for the plan more than opposition. Without taking I to context weighting.
It all sounds a bit vague, any polls done after it was ruled to be unlawful
Yes.
But the legality of it wouldn't change perception.
As discussed and you are well aware. The plan itself didn't form part of the judgement
It’s unlawful
I posted the judgement on here.
Feel free to read it. What the judges wrote doesn't agree.
It’s unlawful, if it isn’t, then why aren’t they sending people to Rwanda and going to the Supreme Court
You were told this.
The decision relates to the timing of the case. Originally from 2022. And didn't reserve judgement on the scheme itself. But the possibility of re deportation."The scheme, as it stands, is unlawful, if it was lawful then why aren’t they sending people to Rwanda and why are they going to the Supreme Court | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it. And yet every poll seemingly shows there's a majority for the scheme ‘Seemingly ‘ ??
Yes. Most recent polls within the last year broadly show support for the plan more than opposition. Without taking I to context weighting.
It all sounds a bit vague, any polls done after it was ruled to be unlawful
Yes.
But the legality of it wouldn't change perception.
As discussed and you are well aware. The plan itself didn't form part of the judgement
It’s unlawful
I posted the judgement on here.
Feel free to read it. What the judges wrote doesn't agree.
It’s unlawful, if it isn’t, then why aren’t they sending people to Rwanda and going to the Supreme Court
You were told this.
The decision relates to the timing of the case. Originally from 2022. And didn't reserve judgement on the scheme itself. But the possibility of re deportation.
The scheme, as it stands, is unlawful, if it was lawful then why aren’t they sending people to Rwanda and why are they going to the Supreme Court "This is not a new thing, the government stated a while back that they expect challenges until the last appeal. With that in mind it would be unwise to enact until all legal challenges have been exhausted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it. And yet every poll seemingly shows there's a majority for the scheme ‘Seemingly ‘ ??
Yes. Most recent polls within the last year broadly show support for the plan more than opposition. Without taking I to context weighting.
It all sounds a bit vague, any polls done after it was ruled to be unlawful
Yes.
But the legality of it wouldn't change perception.
As discussed and you are well aware. The plan itself didn't form part of the judgement
It’s unlawful
I posted the judgement on here.
Feel free to read it. What the judges wrote doesn't agree.
It’s unlawful, if it isn’t, then why aren’t they sending people to Rwanda and going to the Supreme Court
You were told this.
The decision relates to the timing of the case. Originally from 2022. And didn't reserve judgement on the scheme itself. But the possibility of re deportation.
The scheme, as it stands, is unlawful, if it was lawful then why aren’t they sending people to Rwanda and why are they going to the Supreme Court
This is not a new thing, the government stated a while back that they expect challenges until the last appeal.
With that in mind it would be unwise to enact until all legal challenges have been exhausted.
"Like I said, as it stands, it’s unlawful | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it. And yet every poll seemingly shows there's a majority for the scheme ‘Seemingly ‘ ??
Yes. Most recent polls within the last year broadly show support for the plan more than opposition. Without taking I to context weighting.
It all sounds a bit vague, any polls done after it was ruled to be unlawful
Yes.
But the legality of it wouldn't change perception.
As discussed and you are well aware. The plan itself didn't form part of the judgement
It’s unlawful
I posted the judgement on here.
Feel free to read it. What the judges wrote doesn't agree.
It’s unlawful, if it isn’t, then why aren’t they sending people to Rwanda and going to the Supreme Court
You were told this.
The decision relates to the timing of the case. Originally from 2022. And didn't reserve judgement on the scheme itself. But the possibility of re deportation.
The scheme, as it stands, is unlawful, if it was lawful then why aren’t they sending people to Rwanda and why are they going to the Supreme Court
This is not a new thing, the government stated a while back that they expect challenges until the last appeal.
With that in mind it would be unwise to enact until all legal challenges have been exhausted.
Like I said, as it stands, it’s unlawful "Were you making the same point after the high court ruling? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it. And yet every poll seemingly shows there's a majority for the scheme ‘Seemingly ‘ ??
Yes. Most recent polls within the last year broadly show support for the plan more than opposition. Without taking I to context weighting.
It all sounds a bit vague, any polls done after it was ruled to be unlawful
Yes.
But the legality of it wouldn't change perception.
As discussed and you are well aware. The plan itself didn't form part of the judgement
It’s unlawful
I posted the judgement on here.
Feel free to read it. What the judges wrote doesn't agree.
It’s unlawful, if it isn’t, then why aren’t they sending people to Rwanda and going to the Supreme Court
You were told this.
The decision relates to the timing of the case. Originally from 2022. And didn't reserve judgement on the scheme itself. But the possibility of re deportation."Irregular immigrants could not be deported because the policy was under legal challenge, then under appeal. It is currently unlawful to deport immigrants to Rwanda. This is true, whatever you may post or whatever details you wish to focus on. Again, a law being legal does not make it right. Sl@very was once legal in many countries and British territories around the world. (Long version for the pedants). Sl@very was legal once (short version for everyone else). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it. And yet every poll seemingly shows there's a majority for the scheme ‘Seemingly ‘ ??
Yes. Most recent polls within the last year broadly show support for the plan more than opposition. Without taking I to context weighting.
It all sounds a bit vague, any polls done after it was ruled to be unlawful
Yes.
But the legality of it wouldn't change perception.
As discussed and you are well aware. The plan itself didn't form part of the judgement
It’s unlawful
I posted the judgement on here.
Feel free to read it. What the judges wrote doesn't agree.
It’s unlawful, if it isn’t, then why aren’t they sending people to Rwanda and going to the Supreme Court
You were told this.
The decision relates to the timing of the case. Originally from 2022. And didn't reserve judgement on the scheme itself. But the possibility of re deportation.
Irregular immigrants could not be deported because the policy was under legal challenge, then under appeal.
It is currently unlawful to deport immigrants to Rwanda.
This is true, whatever you may post or whatever details you wish to focus on.
Again, a law being legal does not make it right.
Sl@very was once legal in many countries and British territories around the world. (Long version for the pedants).
Sl@very was legal once (short version for everyone else)."Again you misunderstand the case. The case judgement specifically mentions the timing of the case as the safety when the initial deportation was attempted. Do I need to copy past it again? The judgement notes it's not a decision on the legality of deportation to a 3rd country. Of it was the Dublin 3 arrangement wasillegal for donkeys years | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it. And yet every poll seemingly shows there's a majority for the scheme ‘Seemingly ‘ ??
Yes. Most recent polls within the last year broadly show support for the plan more than opposition. Without taking I to context weighting.
It all sounds a bit vague, any polls done after it was ruled to be unlawful
Yes.
But the legality of it wouldn't change perception.
As discussed and you are well aware. The plan itself didn't form part of the judgement
It’s unlawful
I posted the judgement on here.
Feel free to read it. What the judges wrote doesn't agree.
It’s unlawful, if it isn’t, then why aren’t they sending people to Rwanda and going to the Supreme Court
You were told this.
The decision relates to the timing of the case. Originally from 2022. And didn't reserve judgement on the scheme itself. But the possibility of re deportation.
The scheme, as it stands, is unlawful, if it was lawful then why aren’t they sending people to Rwanda and why are they going to the Supreme Court
This is not a new thing, the government stated a while back that they expect challenges until the last appeal.
With that in mind it would be unwise to enact until all legal challenges have been exhausted.
Like I said, as it stands, it’s unlawful
Were you making the same point after the high court ruling?"Do you know what ‘as it stands’ means? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it. And yet every poll seemingly shows there's a majority for the scheme ‘Seemingly ‘ ??
Yes. Most recent polls within the last year broadly show support for the plan more than opposition. Without taking I to context weighting.
It all sounds a bit vague, any polls done after it was ruled to be unlawful
Yes.
But the legality of it wouldn't change perception.
As discussed and you are well aware. The plan itself didn't form part of the judgement
It’s unlawful
I posted the judgement on here.
Feel free to read it. What the judges wrote doesn't agree.
It’s unlawful, if it isn’t, then why aren’t they sending people to Rwanda and going to the Supreme Court
You were told this.
The decision relates to the timing of the case. Originally from 2022. And didn't reserve judgement on the scheme itself. But the possibility of re deportation.
Irregular immigrants could not be deported because the policy was under legal challenge, then under appeal.
It is currently unlawful to deport immigrants to Rwanda.
This is true, whatever you may post or whatever details you wish to focus on.
Again, a law being legal does not make it right.
Sl@very was once legal in many countries and British territories around the world. (Long version for the pedants).
Sl@very was legal once (short version for everyone else).
Again you misunderstand the case.
The case judgement specifically mentions the timing of the case as the safety when the initial deportation was attempted.
Do I need to copy past it again?
The judgement notes it's not a decision on the legality of deportation to a 3rd country.
Of it was the Dublin 3 arrangement wasillegal for donkeys years "Is it legal for the UK Government to deport anyone to Rwanda? Yes or no? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it. And yet every poll seemingly shows there's a majority for the scheme ‘Seemingly ‘ ??
Yes. Most recent polls within the last year broadly show support for the plan more than opposition. Without taking I to context weighting.
It all sounds a bit vague, any polls done after it was ruled to be unlawful
Yes.
But the legality of it wouldn't change perception.
As discussed and you are well aware. The plan itself didn't form part of the judgement
It’s unlawful
I posted the judgement on here.
Feel free to read it. What the judges wrote doesn't agree.
It’s unlawful, if it isn’t, then why aren’t they sending people to Rwanda and going to the Supreme Court
You were told this.
The decision relates to the timing of the case. Originally from 2022. And didn't reserve judgement on the scheme itself. But the possibility of re deportation.
Irregular immigrants could not be deported because the policy was under legal challenge, then under appeal.
It is currently unlawful to deport immigrants to Rwanda.
This is true, whatever you may post or whatever details you wish to focus on.
Again, a law being legal does not make it right.
Sl@very was once legal in many countries and British territories around the world. (Long version for the pedants).
Sl@very was legal once (short version for everyone else).
Again you misunderstand the case.
The case judgement specifically mentions the timing of the case as the safety when the initial deportation was attempted.
Do I need to copy past it again?
The judgement notes it's not a decision on the legality of deportation to a 3rd country.
Of it was the Dublin 3 arrangement wasillegal for donkeys years
Is it legal for the UK Government to deport anyone to Rwanda?
Yes or no?"The government has chosen not to do anything further as acknowledged in the case. The appeals to the Court of Appeal are against the High Court’s decision on the generic challenges. The Government has not appealed against the quashing of the decisions in the Appellants’ individual cases and has not yet made any fresh decisions in those or other cases pending the outcome of the appeals. Do you people bother reading the full judgements? And again. The case is time bound. Because this case was brought on the grounds at the time of the removals. For these specific removals. The court is judging form information before. "he decision of the majority – the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, and Lord Justice Underhill (the Vice-President of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)) – is that the deficiencies in the asylum system in Rwanda are such that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that persons sent to Rwanda will be returned to their home countries where they faced persecution or other inhumane treatment, when, in fact, they have a good claim for asylum. In that sense Rwanda is not a “safe third country”. That conclusion is founded on the evidence which was before the High Court that Rwanda’s system for deciding asylum claims was, in the period up to the conclusion of the Rwanda agreement, inadequate. The Court is unanimous in accepting that the assurances given by the Rwandan government were made in good faith and were intended to address any defects in its asylum processes. However, the majority believes that the evidence does not establish that the necessary changes had by then been reliably effected or would have been at the time of the proposed removals." It's making no judgement on the plan as it is now. Removals to Rwanda are legal. In this specific case there removals of "THESE PERSONS " I'd not legal until the supreme court makes its ruling. It asks for the deficiencies in the asylum process to be addressed. "The result is that the High Court’s decision that Rwanda was a safe third country is reversed and that unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum processes are corrected removal of asylum-seekers to Rwanda will be unlawful." Those deficiencies are already addressed. Which is why they are going to the supreme court. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it. And yet every poll seemingly shows there's a majority for the scheme ‘Seemingly ‘ ??
Yes. Most recent polls within the last year broadly show support for the plan more than opposition. Without taking I to context weighting.
It all sounds a bit vague, any polls done after it was ruled to be unlawful
Yes.
But the legality of it wouldn't change perception.
As discussed and you are well aware. The plan itself didn't form part of the judgement
It’s unlawful
I posted the judgement on here.
Feel free to read it. What the judges wrote doesn't agree.
It’s unlawful, if it isn’t, then why aren’t they sending people to Rwanda and going to the Supreme Court
You were told this.
The decision relates to the timing of the case. Originally from 2022. And didn't reserve judgement on the scheme itself. But the possibility of re deportation.
Irregular immigrants could not be deported because the policy was under legal challenge, then under appeal.
It is currently unlawful to deport immigrants to Rwanda.
This is true, whatever you may post or whatever details you wish to focus on.
Again, a law being legal does not make it right.
Sl@very was once legal in many countries and British territories around the world. (Long version for the pedants).
Sl@very was legal once (short version for everyone else).
Again you misunderstand the case.
The case judgement specifically mentions the timing of the case as the safety when the initial deportation was attempted.
Do I need to copy past it again?
The judgement notes it's not a decision on the legality of deportation to a 3rd country.
Of it was the Dublin 3 arrangement wasillegal for donkeys years
Is it legal for the UK Government to deport anyone to Rwanda?
Yes or no?
The government has chosen not to do anything further as acknowledged in the case.
The appeals to the Court of Appeal are against the High Court’s decision
on the generic challenges. The Government has not appealed against the
quashing of the decisions in the Appellants’ individual cases and has not
yet made any fresh decisions in those or other cases pending the outcome
of the appeals.
Do you people bother reading the full judgements?
And again.
The case is time bound.
Because this case was brought on the grounds at the time of the removals. For these specific removals.
The court is judging form information before.
"he decision of the majority – the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos,
and Lord Justice Underhill (the Vice-President of the Court of Appeal
(Civil Division)) – is that the deficiencies in the asylum system in Rwanda
are such that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real
risk that persons sent to Rwanda will be returned to their home countries
where they faced persecution or other inhumane treatment, when, in fact,
they have a good claim for asylum. In that sense Rwanda is not a “safe
third country”. That conclusion is founded on the evidence which was
before the High Court that Rwanda’s system for deciding asylum claims
was, in the period up to the conclusion of the Rwanda agreement,
inadequate. The Court is unanimous in accepting that the assurances given
by the Rwandan government were made in good faith and were intended
to address any defects in its asylum processes. However, the majority
believes that the evidence does not establish that the necessary changes had
by then been reliably effected or would have been at the time of the
proposed removals."
It's making no judgement on the plan as it is now.
Removals to Rwanda are legal.
In this specific case there removals of "THESE PERSONS " I'd not legal until the supreme court makes its ruling.
It asks for the deficiencies in the asylum process to be addressed.
"The result is that the High Court’s decision that Rwanda was a safe third
country is reversed and that unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum
processes are corrected removal of asylum-seekers to Rwanda will be
unlawful."
Those deficiencies are already addressed.
Which is why they are going to the supreme court."As it stands, it’s unlawful | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it. And yet every poll seemingly shows there's a majority for the scheme ‘Seemingly ‘ ??
Yes. Most recent polls within the last year broadly show support for the plan more than opposition. Without taking I to context weighting.
It all sounds a bit vague, any polls done after it was ruled to be unlawful
Yes.
But the legality of it wouldn't change perception.
As discussed and you are well aware. The plan itself didn't form part of the judgement
It’s unlawful
I posted the judgement on here.
Feel free to read it. What the judges wrote doesn't agree.
It’s unlawful, if it isn’t, then why aren’t they sending people to Rwanda and going to the Supreme Court
You were told this.
The decision relates to the timing of the case. Originally from 2022. And didn't reserve judgement on the scheme itself. But the possibility of re deportation.
Irregular immigrants could not be deported because the policy was under legal challenge, then under appeal.
It is currently unlawful to deport immigrants to Rwanda.
This is true, whatever you may post or whatever details you wish to focus on.
Again, a law being legal does not make it right.
Sl@very was once legal in many countries and British territories around the world. (Long version for the pedants).
Sl@very was legal once (short version for everyone else).
Again you misunderstand the case.
The case judgement specifically mentions the timing of the case as the safety when the initial deportation was attempted.
Do I need to copy past it again?
The judgement notes it's not a decision on the legality of deportation to a 3rd country.
Of it was the Dublin 3 arrangement wasillegal for donkeys years
Is it legal for the UK Government to deport anyone to Rwanda?
Yes or no?
The government has chosen not to do anything further as acknowledged in the case.
The appeals to the Court of Appeal are against the High Court’s decision
on the generic challenges. The Government has not appealed against the
quashing of the decisions in the Appellants’ individual cases and has not
yet made any fresh decisions in those or other cases pending the outcome
of the appeals.
Do you people bother reading the full judgements?
And again.
The case is time bound.
Because this case was brought on the grounds at the time of the removals. For these specific removals.
The court is judging form information before.
"he decision of the majority – the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos,
and Lord Justice Underhill (the Vice-President of the Court of Appeal
(Civil Division)) – is that the deficiencies in the asylum system in Rwanda
are such that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real
risk that persons sent to Rwanda will be returned to their home countries
where they faced persecution or other inhumane treatment, when, in fact,
they have a good claim for asylum. In that sense Rwanda is not a “safe
third country”. That conclusion is founded on the evidence which was
before the High Court that Rwanda’s system for deciding asylum claims
was, in the period up to the conclusion of the Rwanda agreement,
inadequate. The Court is unanimous in accepting that the assurances given
by the Rwandan government were made in good faith and were intended
to address any defects in its asylum processes. However, the majority
believes that the evidence does not establish that the necessary changes had
by then been reliably effected or would have been at the time of the
proposed removals."
It's making no judgement on the plan as it is now.
Removals to Rwanda are legal.
In this specific case there removals of "THESE PERSONS " I'd not legal until the supreme court makes its ruling.
It asks for the deficiencies in the asylum process to be addressed.
"The result is that the High Court’s decision that Rwanda was a safe third
country is reversed and that unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum
processes are corrected removal of asylum-seekers to Rwanda will be
unlawful."
Those deficiencies are already addressed.
Which is why they are going to the supreme court."So the answer is, no. It is not currently legal to deport irregular immigrants to Rwanda. I wrote the answer in far fewer words. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Never been but my husband has been twice. Nice place and lovely people or that's his opinion from his couple of visits. Uganda even better ..." Russians are nice people too. Their government's less so. The same with Iranians and all manner of others. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Never been but my husband has been twice. Nice place and lovely people or that's his opinion from his couple of visits. Uganda even better ... Russians are nice people too. Their government's less so. The same with Iranians and all manner of others." Very true. There are nice, average and not so nice people from all over. He's never worked overseas where the people are not brilliant and made him very welcome, even those pesky Russians. But we tend to have more in common than difference. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Never been but my husband has been twice. Nice place and lovely people or that's his opinion from his couple of visits. Uganda even better ... Russians are nice people too. Their government's less so. The same with Iranians and all manner of others. Very true. There are nice, average and not so nice people from all over. He's never worked overseas where the people are not brilliant and made him very welcome, even those pesky Russians. But we tend to have more in common than difference." The point being that this is not reflective of how their Governments may behave. That is the matter of concern. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it." . ... This point was backed up on radio yesterday , with the suggestion not to read too much into the fact that no one put up their hand to support the government , with the thought that no one wanted to be the first | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it.. ... This point was backed up on radio yesterday , with the suggestion not to read too much into the fact that no one put up their hand to support the government , with the thought that no one wanted to be the first " Why? Are they cowards ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it. And yet every poll seemingly shows there's a majority for the scheme ‘Seemingly ‘ ??
Yes. Most recent polls within the last year broadly show support for the plan more than opposition. Without taking I to context weighting.
It all sounds a bit vague, any polls done after it was ruled to be unlawful
Yes.
But the legality of it wouldn't change perception.
As discussed and you are well aware. The plan itself didn't form part of the judgement
It’s unlawful
I posted the judgement on here.
Feel free to read it. What the judges wrote doesn't agree.
It’s unlawful, if it isn’t, then why aren’t they sending people to Rwanda and going to the Supreme Court
You were told this.
The decision relates to the timing of the case. Originally from 2022. And didn't reserve judgement on the scheme itself. But the possibility of re deportation.
Irregular immigrants could not be deported because the policy was under legal challenge, then under appeal.
It is currently unlawful to deport immigrants to Rwanda.
This is true, whatever you may post or whatever details you wish to focus on.
Again, a law being legal does not make it right.
Sl@very was once legal in many countries and British territories around the world. (Long version for the pedants).
Sl@very was legal once (short version for everyone else).
Again you misunderstand the case.
The case judgement specifically mentions the timing of the case as the safety when the initial deportation was attempted.
Do I need to copy past it again?
The judgement notes it's not a decision on the legality of deportation to a 3rd country.
Of it was the Dublin 3 arrangement wasillegal for donkeys years
Is it legal for the UK Government to deport anyone to Rwanda?
Yes or no?
The government has chosen not to do anything further as acknowledged in the case.
The appeals to the Court of Appeal are against the High Court’s decision
on the generic challenges. The Government has not appealed against the
quashing of the decisions in the Appellants’ individual cases and has not
yet made any fresh decisions in those or other cases pending the outcome
of the appeals.
Do you people bother reading the full judgements?
And again.
The case is time bound.
Because this case was brought on the grounds at the time of the removals. For these specific removals.
The court is judging form information before.
"he decision of the majority – the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos,
and Lord Justice Underhill (the Vice-President of the Court of Appeal
(Civil Division)) – is that the deficiencies in the asylum system in Rwanda
are such that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real
risk that persons sent to Rwanda will be returned to their home countries
where they faced persecution or other inhumane treatment, when, in fact,
they have a good claim for asylum. In that sense Rwanda is not a “safe
third country”. That conclusion is founded on the evidence which was
before the High Court that Rwanda’s system for deciding asylum claims
was, in the period up to the conclusion of the Rwanda agreement,
inadequate. The Court is unanimous in accepting that the assurances given
by the Rwandan government were made in good faith and were intended
to address any defects in its asylum processes. However, the majority
believes that the evidence does not establish that the necessary changes had
by then been reliably effected or would have been at the time of the
proposed removals."
It's making no judgement on the plan as it is now.
Removals to Rwanda are legal.
In this specific case there removals of "THESE PERSONS " I'd not legal until the supreme court makes its ruling.
It asks for the deficiencies in the asylum process to be addressed.
"The result is that the High Court’s decision that Rwanda was a safe third
country is reversed and that unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum
processes are corrected removal of asylum-seekers to Rwanda will be
unlawful."
Those deficiencies are already addressed.
Which is why they are going to the supreme court.
So the answer is, no. It is not currently legal to deport irregular immigrants to Rwanda.
I wrote the answer in far fewer words."No. The answer is it is currently legal to deport. Jesus christ.do you not know how to read. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The uk government could organise sending flights now of asylum seekers to Rwanda, But it would meet the same court battles and waste tax payers money as is ongoing here. So it's easier to wait for the supreme court ruling. Rather than organise flights and cancel them when they are inevitably taken to court. This specific court case is dealing with these 10 migrants who brought it up. Currently other than these 10 individuals the scheme can still be operated for other migrants, it is thus legal. But pointless trying to organise deportation currently. This is all in the above judgement you've failed to comprehend " As it stands it is unsafe and unlawful | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The legal challenges should be speeded up, get to the conclusion quicker. " Why? I ‘suspect ‘ the government want them to take as long as possible, gives them a scapegoat to blame for their failures | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it. And yet every poll seemingly shows there's a majority for the scheme ‘Seemingly ‘ ??
Yes. Most recent polls within the last year broadly show support for the plan more than opposition. Without taking I to context weighting.
It all sounds a bit vague, any polls done after it was ruled to be unlawful
Yes.
But the legality of it wouldn't change perception.
As discussed and you are well aware. The plan itself didn't form part of the judgement
It’s unlawful
I posted the judgement on here.
Feel free to read it. What the judges wrote doesn't agree.
It’s unlawful, if it isn’t, then why aren’t they sending people to Rwanda and going to the Supreme Court
You were told this.
The decision relates to the timing of the case. Originally from 2022. And didn't reserve judgement on the scheme itself. But the possibility of re deportation.
Irregular immigrants could not be deported because the policy was under legal challenge, then under appeal.
It is currently unlawful to deport immigrants to Rwanda.
This is true, whatever you may post or whatever details you wish to focus on.
Again, a law being legal does not make it right.
Sl@very was once legal in many countries and British territories around the world. (Long version for the pedants).
Sl@very was legal once (short version for everyone else).
Again you misunderstand the case.
The case judgement specifically mentions the timing of the case as the safety when the initial deportation was attempted.
Do I need to copy past it again?
The judgement notes it's not a decision on the legality of deportation to a 3rd country.
Of it was the Dublin 3 arrangement wasillegal for donkeys years
Is it legal for the UK Government to deport anyone to Rwanda?
Yes or no?
The government has chosen not to do anything further as acknowledged in the case.
The appeals to the Court of Appeal are against the High Court’s decision
on the generic challenges. The Government has not appealed against the
quashing of the decisions in the Appellants’ individual cases and has not
yet made any fresh decisions in those or other cases pending the outcome
of the appeals.
Do you people bother reading the full judgements?
And again.
The case is time bound.
Because this case was brought on the grounds at the time of the removals. For these specific removals.
The court is judging form information before.
"he decision of the majority – the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos,
and Lord Justice Underhill (the Vice-President of the Court of Appeal
(Civil Division)) – is that the deficiencies in the asylum system in Rwanda
are such that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real
risk that persons sent to Rwanda will be returned to their home countries
where they faced persecution or other inhumane treatment, when, in fact,
they have a good claim for asylum. In that sense Rwanda is not a “safe
third country”. That conclusion is founded on the evidence which was
before the High Court that Rwanda’s system for deciding asylum claims
was, in the period up to the conclusion of the Rwanda agreement,
inadequate. The Court is unanimous in accepting that the assurances given
by the Rwandan government were made in good faith and were intended
to address any defects in its asylum processes. However, the majority
believes that the evidence does not establish that the necessary changes had
by then been reliably effected or would have been at the time of the
proposed removals."
It's making no judgement on the plan as it is now.
Removals to Rwanda are legal.
In this specific case there removals of "THESE PERSONS " I'd not legal until the supreme court makes its ruling.
It asks for the deficiencies in the asylum process to be addressed.
"The result is that the High Court’s decision that Rwanda was a safe third
country is reversed and that unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum
processes are corrected removal of asylum-seekers to Rwanda will be
unlawful."
Those deficiencies are already addressed.
Which is why they are going to the supreme court.
So the answer is, no. It is not currently legal to deport irregular immigrants to Rwanda.
I wrote the answer in far fewer words.
No.
The answer is it is currently legal to deport.
Jesus christ.do you not know how to read."You are really completely impermeable to reality, aren't you? "In June 2023, the Court of Appeal overturned an earlier ruling by the High Court that the Rwanda plan was lawful. The judges ruled that the east African nation is not a safe third country because of "deficiencies" in its asylum system which mean that some claimants could be sent back to their home countries, where they might face persecution. It said that "unless and until" those deficiencies are corrected, removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful. The ruling also said that the Rwanda policy breaches Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman treatment." https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-61782866 The exact wording of the judgement: "14.The result is that the High Court’s decision that Rwanda was a safe third country is reversed and that unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum processes are corrected removal of asylum-seekers to Rwanda will be unlawful." You like bickering over definitions. What does the word "unlawful" mean to you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The legal challenges should be speeded up, get to the conclusion quicker. Why? I ‘suspect ‘ the government want them to take as long as possible, gives them a scapegoat to blame for their failures "The constant challenge through the courts does nothing but drag it on, costing ££££'s and frustrations on both sides of the argument. This particular policy will go all the way and in my opinion should have a shorter route to the final decision, due to it being a dead cert as a challenge to the end. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The legal challenges should be speeded up, get to the conclusion quicker. Why? I ‘suspect ‘ the government want them to take as long as possible, gives them a scapegoat to blame for their failures
The constant challenge through the courts does nothing but drag it on, costing ££££'s and frustrations on both sides of the argument.
This particular policy will go all the way and in my opinion should have a shorter route to the final decision, due to it being a dead cert as a challenge to the end."It has been recommended by the Courts themselves to be resolved quickly. However, time is still needed for legal arguments to be prepared, heard and considered. There is no "shorter route". The process remains the same. Lower court, appeal,final appeal. Between each stage a challenge to a judgement also needs to be prepared, heard and allowed or denied. All that can and has been done is that court time is made available as soon as possible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it. And yet every poll seemingly shows there's a majority for the scheme ‘Seemingly ‘ ??
Yes. Most recent polls within the last year broadly show support for the plan more than opposition. Without taking I to context weighting.
It all sounds a bit vague, any polls done after it was ruled to be unlawful
Yes.
But the legality of it wouldn't change perception.
As discussed and you are well aware. The plan itself didn't form part of the judgement
It’s unlawful
I posted the judgement on here.
Feel free to read it. What the judges wrote doesn't agree.
It’s unlawful, if it isn’t, then why aren’t they sending people to Rwanda and going to the Supreme Court
You were told this.
The decision relates to the timing of the case. Originally from 2022. And didn't reserve judgement on the scheme itself. But the possibility of re deportation.
Irregular immigrants could not be deported because the policy was under legal challenge, then under appeal.
It is currently unlawful to deport immigrants to Rwanda.
This is true, whatever you may post or whatever details you wish to focus on.
Again, a law being legal does not make it right.
Sl@very was once legal in many countries and British territories around the world. (Long version for the pedants).
Sl@very was legal once (short version for everyone else).
Again you misunderstand the case.
The case judgement specifically mentions the timing of the case as the safety when the initial deportation was attempted.
Do I need to copy past it again?
The judgement notes it's not a decision on the legality of deportation to a 3rd country.
Of it was the Dublin 3 arrangement wasillegal for donkeys years
Is it legal for the UK Government to deport anyone to Rwanda?
Yes or no?
The government has chosen not to do anything further as acknowledged in the case.
The appeals to the Court of Appeal are against the High Court’s decision
on the generic challenges. The Government has not appealed against the
quashing of the decisions in the Appellants’ individual cases and has not
yet made any fresh decisions in those or other cases pending the outcome
of the appeals.
Do you people bother reading the full judgements?
And again.
The case is time bound.
Because this case was brought on the grounds at the time of the removals. For these specific removals.
The court is judging form information before.
"he decision of the majority – the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos,
and Lord Justice Underhill (the Vice-President of the Court of Appeal
(Civil Division)) – is that the deficiencies in the asylum system in Rwanda
are such that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real
risk that persons sent to Rwanda will be returned to their home countries
where they faced persecution or other inhumane treatment, when, in fact,
they have a good claim for asylum. In that sense Rwanda is not a “safe
third country”. That conclusion is founded on the evidence which was
before the High Court that Rwanda’s system for deciding asylum claims
was, in the period up to the conclusion of the Rwanda agreement,
inadequate. The Court is unanimous in accepting that the assurances given
by the Rwandan government were made in good faith and were intended
to address any defects in its asylum processes. However, the majority
believes that the evidence does not establish that the necessary changes had
by then been reliably effected or would have been at the time of the
proposed removals."
It's making no judgement on the plan as it is now.
Removals to Rwanda are legal.
In this specific case there removals of "THESE PERSONS " I'd not legal until the supreme court makes its ruling.
It asks for the deficiencies in the asylum process to be addressed.
"The result is that the High Court’s decision that Rwanda was a safe third
country is reversed and that unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum
processes are corrected removal of asylum-seekers to Rwanda will be
unlawful."
Those deficiencies are already addressed.
Which is why they are going to the supreme court.
So the answer is, no. It is not currently legal to deport irregular immigrants to Rwanda.
I wrote the answer in far fewer words.
No.
The answer is it is currently legal to deport.
Jesus christ.do you not know how to read.
You are really completely impermeable to reality, aren't you?
"In June 2023, the Court of Appeal overturned an earlier ruling by the High Court that the Rwanda plan was lawful.
The judges ruled that the east African nation is not a safe third country because of "deficiencies" in its asylum system which mean that some claimants could be sent back to their home countries, where they might face persecution.
It said that "unless and until" those deficiencies are corrected, removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful.
The ruling also said that the Rwanda policy breaches Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman treatment."
https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-61782866
The exact wording of the judgement:
"14.The result is that the High Court’s decision that Rwanda was a safe third country is reversed and that unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum processes are corrected removal of asylum-seekers to Rwanda will be unlawful."
You like bickering over definitions. What does the word "unlawful" mean to you?"You can't read can you. I've posted the judgement on here multiple times. The judgement relates to the exact time those refugees were being deported. That was over 1 year ago. It's very specific to the case. If you're going to continue to ignore that point. And other surrounding this case and the actual judgement. There's no point in the discussion going further as you continually proce your ignorance in how the law and judgements lay | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it. And yet every poll seemingly shows there's a majority for the scheme ‘Seemingly ‘ ??
Yes. Most recent polls within the last year broadly show support for the plan more than opposition. Without taking I to context weighting.
It all sounds a bit vague, any polls done after it was ruled to be unlawful
Yes.
But the legality of it wouldn't change perception.
As discussed and you are well aware. The plan itself didn't form part of the judgement
It’s unlawful
I posted the judgement on here.
Feel free to read it. What the judges wrote doesn't agree.
It’s unlawful, if it isn’t, then why aren’t they sending people to Rwanda and going to the Supreme Court
You were told this.
The decision relates to the timing of the case. Originally from 2022. And didn't reserve judgement on the scheme itself. But the possibility of re deportation.
Irregular immigrants could not be deported because the policy was under legal challenge, then under appeal.
It is currently unlawful to deport immigrants to Rwanda.
This is true, whatever you may post or whatever details you wish to focus on.
Again, a law being legal does not make it right.
Sl@very was once legal in many countries and British territories around the world. (Long version for the pedants).
Sl@very was legal once (short version for everyone else).
Again you misunderstand the case.
The case judgement specifically mentions the timing of the case as the safety when the initial deportation was attempted.
Do I need to copy past it again?
The judgement notes it's not a decision on the legality of deportation to a 3rd country.
Of it was the Dublin 3 arrangement wasillegal for donkeys years
Is it legal for the UK Government to deport anyone to Rwanda?
Yes or no?
The government has chosen not to do anything further as acknowledged in the case.
The appeals to the Court of Appeal are against the High Court’s decision
on the generic challenges. The Government has not appealed against the
quashing of the decisions in the Appellants’ individual cases and has not
yet made any fresh decisions in those or other cases pending the outcome
of the appeals.
Do you people bother reading the full judgements?
And again.
The case is time bound.
Because this case was brought on the grounds at the time of the removals. For these specific removals.
The court is judging form information before.
"he decision of the majority – the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos,
and Lord Justice Underhill (the Vice-President of the Court of Appeal
(Civil Division)) – is that the deficiencies in the asylum system in Rwanda
are such that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real
risk that persons sent to Rwanda will be returned to their home countries
where they faced persecution or other inhumane treatment, when, in fact,
they have a good claim for asylum. In that sense Rwanda is not a “safe
third country”. That conclusion is founded on the evidence which was
before the High Court that Rwanda’s system for deciding asylum claims
was, in the period up to the conclusion of the Rwanda agreement,
inadequate. The Court is unanimous in accepting that the assurances given
by the Rwandan government were made in good faith and were intended
to address any defects in its asylum processes. However, the majority
believes that the evidence does not establish that the necessary changes had
by then been reliably effected or would have been at the time of the
proposed removals."
It's making no judgement on the plan as it is now.
Removals to Rwanda are legal.
In this specific case there removals of "THESE PERSONS " I'd not legal until the supreme court makes its ruling.
It asks for the deficiencies in the asylum process to be addressed.
"The result is that the High Court’s decision that Rwanda was a safe third
country is reversed and that unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum
processes are corrected removal of asylum-seekers to Rwanda will be
unlawful."
Those deficiencies are already addressed.
Which is why they are going to the supreme court.
So the answer is, no. It is not currently legal to deport irregular immigrants to Rwanda.
I wrote the answer in far fewer words.
No.
The answer is it is currently legal to deport.
Jesus christ.do you not know how to read.
You are really completely impermeable to reality, aren't you?
"In June 2023, the Court of Appeal overturned an earlier ruling by the High Court that the Rwanda plan was lawful.
The judges ruled that the east African nation is not a safe third country because of "deficiencies" in its asylum system which mean that some claimants could be sent back to their home countries, where they might face persecution.
It said that "unless and until" those deficiencies are corrected, removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful.
The ruling also said that the Rwanda policy breaches Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman treatment."
https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-61782866
The exact wording of the judgement:
"14.The result is that the High Court’s decision that Rwanda was a safe third country is reversed and that unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum processes are corrected removal of asylum-seekers to Rwanda will be unlawful."
You like bickering over definitions. What does the word "unlawful" mean to you?
You can't read can you.
I've posted the judgement on here multiple times.
The judgement relates to the exact time those refugees were being deported. That was over 1 year ago.
It's very specific to the case.
If you're going to continue to ignore that point. And other surrounding this case and the actual judgement.
There's no point in the discussion going further as you continually proce your ignorance in how the law and judgements lay
"I've provided you the summary of the ruling and the exact words. The judgement of the specific case has an effect on all cases. What does the word "unlawful" mean to you? In fact, what do the words "removal of asylum-seekers to Rwanda will be unlawful" mean to you? You can get as angry as you like and try to ignore reality if you wish. It is a "novel" position to take given the actual summary of the judgement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it. And yet every poll seemingly shows there's a majority for the scheme ‘Seemingly ‘ ??
Yes. Most recent polls within the last year broadly show support for the plan more than opposition. Without taking I to context weighting.
It all sounds a bit vague, any polls done after it was ruled to be unlawful
Yes.
But the legality of it wouldn't change perception.
As discussed and you are well aware. The plan itself didn't form part of the judgement
It’s unlawful
I posted the judgement on here.
Feel free to read it. What the judges wrote doesn't agree.
It’s unlawful, if it isn’t, then why aren’t they sending people to Rwanda and going to the Supreme Court
You were told this.
The decision relates to the timing of the case. Originally from 2022. And didn't reserve judgement on the scheme itself. But the possibility of re deportation.
Irregular immigrants could not be deported because the policy was under legal challenge, then under appeal.
It is currently unlawful to deport immigrants to Rwanda.
This is true, whatever you may post or whatever details you wish to focus on.
Again, a law being legal does not make it right.
Sl@very was once legal in many countries and British territories around the world. (Long version for the pedants).
Sl@very was legal once (short version for everyone else).
Again you misunderstand the case.
The case judgement specifically mentions the timing of the case as the safety when the initial deportation was attempted.
Do I need to copy past it again?
The judgement notes it's not a decision on the legality of deportation to a 3rd country.
Of it was the Dublin 3 arrangement wasillegal for donkeys years
Is it legal for the UK Government to deport anyone to Rwanda?
Yes or no?
The government has chosen not to do anything further as acknowledged in the case.
The appeals to the Court of Appeal are against the High Court’s decision
on the generic challenges. The Government has not appealed against the
quashing of the decisions in the Appellants’ individual cases and has not
yet made any fresh decisions in those or other cases pending the outcome
of the appeals.
Do you people bother reading the full judgements?
And again.
The case is time bound.
Because this case was brought on the grounds at the time of the removals. For these specific removals.
The court is judging form information before.
"he decision of the majority – the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos,
and Lord Justice Underhill (the Vice-President of the Court of Appeal
(Civil Division)) – is that the deficiencies in the asylum system in Rwanda
are such that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real
risk that persons sent to Rwanda will be returned to their home countries
where they faced persecution or other inhumane treatment, when, in fact,
they have a good claim for asylum. In that sense Rwanda is not a “safe
third country”. That conclusion is founded on the evidence which was
before the High Court that Rwanda’s system for deciding asylum claims
was, in the period up to the conclusion of the Rwanda agreement,
inadequate. The Court is unanimous in accepting that the assurances given
by the Rwandan government were made in good faith and were intended
to address any defects in its asylum processes. However, the majority
believes that the evidence does not establish that the necessary changes had
by then been reliably effected or would have been at the time of the
proposed removals."
It's making no judgement on the plan as it is now.
Removals to Rwanda are legal.
In this specific case there removals of "THESE PERSONS " I'd not legal until the supreme court makes its ruling.
It asks for the deficiencies in the asylum process to be addressed.
"The result is that the High Court’s decision that Rwanda was a safe third
country is reversed and that unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum
processes are corrected removal of asylum-seekers to Rwanda will be
unlawful."
Those deficiencies are already addressed.
Which is why they are going to the supreme court.
So the answer is, no. It is not currently legal to deport irregular immigrants to Rwanda.
I wrote the answer in far fewer words.
No.
The answer is it is currently legal to deport.
Jesus christ.do you not know how to read.
You are really completely impermeable to reality, aren't you?
"In June 2023, the Court of Appeal overturned an earlier ruling by the High Court that the Rwanda plan was lawful.
The judges ruled that the east African nation is not a safe third country because of "deficiencies" in its asylum system which mean that some claimants could be sent back to their home countries, where they might face persecution.
It said that "unless and until" those deficiencies are corrected, removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful.
The ruling also said that the Rwanda policy breaches Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman treatment."
https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-61782866
The exact wording of the judgement:
"14.The result is that the High Court’s decision that Rwanda was a safe third country is reversed and that unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum processes are corrected removal of asylum-seekers to Rwanda will be unlawful."
You like bickering over definitions. What does the word "unlawful" mean to you?
You can't read can you.
I've posted the judgement on here multiple times.
The judgement relates to the exact time those refugees were being deported. That was over 1 year ago.
It's very specific to the case.
If you're going to continue to ignore that point. And other surrounding this case and the actual judgement.
There's no point in the discussion going further as you continually proce your ignorance in how the law and judgements lay
I've provided you the summary of the ruling and the exact words.
The judgement of the specific case has an effect on all cases.
What does the word "unlawful" mean to you?
In fact, what do the words "removal of asylum-seekers to Rwanda will be unlawful" mean to you?
You can get as angry as you like and try to ignore reality if you wish. It is a "novel" position to take given the actual summary of the judgement."And i have provided you the exact judgement. And it's working It's a Shame you dont comprehend it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On BBC QT ,Fiona Bruce asked the audience , ( which consisted of more Conservative voters than any other party ) did anyone support the Rwanda scheme ? , no one did Oh course not. If you show even the slightest interest in the Rwanda scheme, someone will label you a racist. Who wants to volunteer for that experience? The real level of support for the scheme can be judged by how often Tory politicians refer to it. Love the Tories or loathe then, they aren't stupid, and they wouldn't be promoting this scheme if they thought there was no support for it. And yet every poll seemingly shows there's a majority for the scheme ‘Seemingly ‘ ??
Yes. Most recent polls within the last year broadly show support for the plan more than opposition. Without taking I to context weighting.
It all sounds a bit vague, any polls done after it was ruled to be unlawful
Yes.
But the legality of it wouldn't change perception.
As discussed and you are well aware. The plan itself didn't form part of the judgement
It’s unlawful
I posted the judgement on here.
Feel free to read it. What the judges wrote doesn't agree.
It’s unlawful, if it isn’t, then why aren’t they sending people to Rwanda and going to the Supreme Court
You were told this.
The decision relates to the timing of the case. Originally from 2022. And didn't reserve judgement on the scheme itself. But the possibility of re deportation.
Irregular immigrants could not be deported because the policy was under legal challenge, then under appeal.
It is currently unlawful to deport immigrants to Rwanda.
This is true, whatever you may post or whatever details you wish to focus on.
Again, a law being legal does not make it right.
Sl@very was once legal in many countries and British territories around the world. (Long version for the pedants).
Sl@very was legal once (short version for everyone else).
Again you misunderstand the case.
The case judgement specifically mentions the timing of the case as the safety when the initial deportation was attempted.
Do I need to copy past it again?
The judgement notes it's not a decision on the legality of deportation to a 3rd country.
Of it was the Dublin 3 arrangement wasillegal for donkeys years
Is it legal for the UK Government to deport anyone to Rwanda?
Yes or no?
The government has chosen not to do anything further as acknowledged in the case.
The appeals to the Court of Appeal are against the High Court’s decision
on the generic challenges. The Government has not appealed against the
quashing of the decisions in the Appellants’ individual cases and has not
yet made any fresh decisions in those or other cases pending the outcome
of the appeals.
Do you people bother reading the full judgements?
And again.
The case is time bound.
Because this case was brought on the grounds at the time of the removals. For these specific removals.
The court is judging form information before.
"he decision of the majority – the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos,
and Lord Justice Underhill (the Vice-President of the Court of Appeal
(Civil Division)) – is that the deficiencies in the asylum system in Rwanda
are such that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real
risk that persons sent to Rwanda will be returned to their home countries
where they faced persecution or other inhumane treatment, when, in fact,
they have a good claim for asylum. In that sense Rwanda is not a “safe
third country”. That conclusion is founded on the evidence which was
before the High Court that Rwanda’s system for deciding asylum claims
was, in the period up to the conclusion of the Rwanda agreement,
inadequate. The Court is unanimous in accepting that the assurances given
by the Rwandan government were made in good faith and were intended
to address any defects in its asylum processes. However, the majority
believes that the evidence does not establish that the necessary changes had
by then been reliably effected or would have been at the time of the
proposed removals."
It's making no judgement on the plan as it is now.
Removals to Rwanda are legal.
In this specific case there removals of "THESE PERSONS " I'd not legal until the supreme court makes its ruling.
It asks for the deficiencies in the asylum process to be addressed.
"The result is that the High Court’s decision that Rwanda was a safe third
country is reversed and that unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum
processes are corrected removal of asylum-seekers to Rwanda will be
unlawful."
Those deficiencies are already addressed.
Which is why they are going to the supreme court.
So the answer is, no. It is not currently legal to deport irregular immigrants to Rwanda.
I wrote the answer in far fewer words.
No.
The answer is it is currently legal to deport.
Jesus christ.do you not know how to read.
You are really completely impermeable to reality, aren't you?
"In June 2023, the Court of Appeal overturned an earlier ruling by the High Court that the Rwanda plan was lawful.
The judges ruled that the east African nation is not a safe third country because of "deficiencies" in its asylum system which mean that some claimants could be sent back to their home countries, where they might face persecution.
It said that "unless and until" those deficiencies are corrected, removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful.
The ruling also said that the Rwanda policy breaches Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman treatment."
https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-61782866
The exact wording of the judgement:
"14.The result is that the High Court’s decision that Rwanda was a safe third country is reversed and that unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum processes are corrected removal of asylum-seekers to Rwanda will be unlawful."
You like bickering over definitions. What does the word "unlawful" mean to you?
You can't read can you.
I've posted the judgement on here multiple times.
The judgement relates to the exact time those refugees were being deported. That was over 1 year ago.
It's very specific to the case.
If you're going to continue to ignore that point. And other surrounding this case and the actual judgement.
There's no point in the discussion going further as you continually proce your ignorance in how the law and judgements lay
I've provided you the summary of the ruling and the exact words.
The judgement of the specific case has an effect on all cases.
What does the word "unlawful" mean to you?
In fact, what do the words "removal of asylum-seekers to Rwanda will be unlawful" mean to you?
You can get as angry as you like and try to ignore reality if you wish. It is a "novel" position to take given the actual summary of the judgement.
And i have provided you the exact judgement. And it's working
It's a Shame you dont comprehend it "I comprehend the difference between the specific judgement and the general application to the law. I also know what "removal of asylum-seekers to Rwanda will be unlawful" means, although you seem to be struggling. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If Suella Braverman dreams do come true and she gets a photo opportunity on the runway to wave off a plane , will any children on the flight be allowed to have cartoons of Micky , Pluto , Daffy etc on their walls once they arrive in Rwanda ? " I still think this will not go ahead and be bogged down in legal details but should people actually be sent to Rwanda then the decor of the accommodation is up to the Rwandan authorities I would imagine | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can't say it's a surprise. Let's hope he has a rest, and comes back more focused." Not a chance | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can't say it's a surprise. Let's hope he has a rest, and comes back more focused. Not a chance "I have been given an extra 500 ’s to use | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can't say it's a surprise. Let's hope he has a rest, and comes back more focused. Not a chance
I have been given an extra 500 ’s to use"Lucky you, try to use them for good instead of being patronising whilst adding nothing of value | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can't say it's a surprise. Let's hope he has a rest, and comes back more focused. Not a chance
I have been given an extra 500 ’s to use
Lucky you, try to use them for good instead of being patronising whilst adding nothing of value " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can't say it's a surprise. Let's hope he has a rest, and comes back more focused. Not a chance
I have been given an extra 500 ’s to use
Lucky you, try to use them for good instead of being patronising whilst adding nothing of value
"Perfect use  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
