What is that "mate" of mine Sadiq Khan trying to achieve ?

 

You lost you demented little cretin, get over it and concentrate on your job you terrorist sympathiser.

1 minute ago, Mounts Kipper said:

It might help folk make up their minds on sending folk to Rwanda if we’d of actually done it and it helped stop/reduced the flow of migrants entering the UK or dying trying to get here…. You know as a deterrent. 

It was never going to be a deterrent as the inital plans was totally flawed - as the high court said yesterday.

That's the thing with policies, they have to actually work. As has been said on here, this is political red meat not a coherent strategy, because stopping small boats is difficult and complex.

Its also a wway to distract from the economic hardship people are going through.

I do not like the Rwanda plan, it is just a distraction from the real issue. 
 

However why is it OK for the United Nations to send refugees there and not the UK ? 

6 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

It was never going to be a deterrent as the inital plans was totally flawed - as the high court said yesterday.

That's the thing with policies, they have to actually work. As has been said on here, this is political red meat not a coherent strategy, because stopping small boats is difficult and complex.

Its also a wway to distract from the economic hardship people are going through.

I’m for the government for actually being allowed to govern and enact policy, seems to me this is a clear attempt to stop that process, be better to give this policy 12 months to see if it helps, if it doesn’t help reduce the flow and stop folk dying then the opposition can make hay. 

2 minutes ago, Ani said:

I do not like the Rwanda plan, it is just a distraction from the real issue. 
 

However why is it OK for the United Nations to send refugees there and not the UK ? 

And Germany want to look at doing the same. Seems to me judges are grandstanding against the Tory government. 

1 minute ago, Mounts Kipper said:

I’m for the government for actually being allowed to govern and enact policy, seems to me this is a clear attempt to stop that process, be better to give this policy 12 months to see if it helps, if it doesn’t help reduce the flow and stop folk dying then the opposition can make hay. 

But that's not the way the system works - there has to be checks and balances otherwise governments can just do whatever they want. This is the sovereignity people seem argue they were voting for in Brexit.

Again, this is why political systems should be taught at school level. Too many people just haven't a clue how our democracy functions. We're a nation of political illiterates.

10 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

But that's not the way the system works - there has to be checks and balances otherwise governments can just do whatever they want. This is the sovereignity people seem argue they were voting for in Brexit.

Again, this is why political systems should be taught at school level. Too many people just haven't a clue how our democracy functions. We're a nation of political illiterates.

I’m hoping the Supreme Court overrule the decision, that the government are allowed to enact this policy then we can all make a call next election if it worked or not. 

Edited June 30, 20232 yr by Mounts Kipper

10 hours ago, BobyBrno said:

The publicity was running on the pitch at a live televised event. They tried to damage the pitch which would have created more publicity. They didn’t. 
Hopefully, Bairstow’s actions will encourage others to do the same. Especially the police.

I didn't know it happened till you posted the picture 

That said 

Now I know 

Nothing has changed for me 

Just another protest

7 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

I’m hoping the Supreme Court overrule the decision, that the government are allowed to enact this policy then we can all make a call next election if it worked or not. 

Gaaaahhh! That's not how it works. G'vt can't just dashing off policies here and there if they are deemed not to be lawful. Its there to protect us against our goverments if so required.

Today's policy, everyone who is over 55 and lives in Bolton to be taken off and made to work in a Gulag.

''Well, I don't agree with it, but we voted them in so I'll just have to wait until the next election to vote them out I guess.''

We are Great Britain. We can do what we want.

1 hour ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

To be fair, polling consistently shows the Rwanda policy has the support of close to half the electorate

It's pretty telling though that none of the majority Tory voters in the audience, felt they could support or justify the policy.  We've got folk admitting their embarrassment at voting for Brexit and some who still believe it was right.

This policy makes no sense economically, morally and now legally.

50 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Because all of the above are better here than most other places in the world. 

Our racists are a little bit less racist 

1 hour ago, only1swanny said:

Why come to Britsin anyway with an intrinsic racist police force, fire service, cricket board etc etc. 

 

 

Because Yanks speak English.

Simple as that.

7 minutes ago, Duck Egg said:

It's pretty telling though that none of the majority Tory voters in the audience, felt they could support or justify the policy.  We've got folk admitting their embarrassment at voting for Brexit and some who still believe it was right.

This policy makes no sense economically, morally and now legally.

They support it

They’re just too embarrassed to admit it in public 

1 hour ago, Mounts Kipper said:

It might help folk make up their minds on sending folk to Rwanda if we’d of actually done it and it helped stop/reduced the flow of migrants entering the UK or dying trying to get here…. You know as a deterrent. 

Potentially then, that would be unlawful given the latest ruling.

A tricky situation, as sooner or later someone will need to grasp the bull by the horns and say to hell with it.

For now though, the judicial process will be followed- whoever lost was going to seek leave to appeal to the supreme Court.

In the meantime, the new bill(s) will help with the courts, but again it just takes time.

Hardly a surprise and nothing was going to change yesterday as further court action was inevitable. 

We can't simply tow the boats back neither, as we have no jurisdiction in French waters.

That said, I wouldn't be averse to simply making an example and doing just that. It would then create a crisis, that would prompt genuine action in Europe.

The French are escorting vessels away from their shores once a boat has left land, so we could show a similar level of disregard and see what happens.

Edited June 30, 20232 yr by Tonge moor green jacket

1 hour ago, Mounts Kipper said:

It might help folk make up their minds on sending folk to Rwanda if we’d of actually done it and it helped stop/reduced the flow of migrants entering the UK or dying trying to get here…. You know as a deterrent. 

Why would it be a deterrent if Rwanda is such a fair and free country?

52 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

And Germany want to look at doing the same. Seems to me judges are grandstanding against the Tory government. 

Doubt that judges of so many years experience would be 'grandstanding'. 

3 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Why would it be a deterrent if Rwanda is such a fair and free country?

No white girls to rape in Rwanda 

Surely the biggest deterrent is ending up in Tunisian fishermen’s net 10 days after drowning.

 If that’s not working, then the Rwanda plan has got no chance. 

54 minutes ago, gonzo said:

We are Great Britain. We can do what we want.

We're actually the United Kingdom.

Great Britain is a geographic term for the largest of the British Isles, consisting of Scotland, England and Wales.

Here endeth the Geography lesson. 😀

1 hour ago, Ani said:

I do not like the Rwanda plan, it is just a distraction from the real issue. 
 

However why is it OK for the United Nations to send refugees there and not the UK ? 

I'm not sure I get that either.

What I do wonder, is why the fuckery Rwanda wants other people's refugees?!?!

10 minutes ago, Sweep said:

I'm not sure I get that either.

What I do wonder, is why the fuckery Rwanda wants other people's refugees?!?!

Cos they getting top dollar for it. A more expensive gateway town scheme you may suggest.

20 minutes ago, tomski said:

Cos they getting top dollar for it. A more expensive gateway town scheme you may suggest.

Indeed, and we all know that always turns out well in the long run 🙂

Interestingly, I read earlier that something like 25,000 people per year flee Rwanda each year anyway and claim refugee status elsewhere (mainly DRC, which apparently has about 150,000 of them) so maybe they just want to replace them

Depressing that the Tories care more about these kinds of daft policies than climate change.

 Even China (one of the biggest polluters) appears to be showing us how it’s done.

 Sooner they’re gone the better. Can’t have a PM in this day & age that doesn’t prioritise it.

Edited June 30, 20232 yr by London Wanderer

19 minutes ago, Sweep said:

Indeed, and we all know that always turns out well in the long run 🙂

Interestingly, I read earlier that something like 25,000 people per year flee Rwanda each year anyway and claim refugee status elsewhere (mainly DRC, which apparently has about 150,000 of them) so maybe they just want to replace them

I’ve been trying to get in to DRC for a while. It’s up and coming.

7 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

Depressing that the Tories care more about these kinds of daft policies than climate change.

 Even China (one of the biggest polluters) appears to be showing us how it’s done.

 Sooner they’re gone the better. Can’t have a PM in this day & age that doesn’t prioritise it.

No arguments here but let’s be fair, China are not showing anyone how it’s done. If we did f all here we’d still not lay a glove on china for pollution.