Tower to GB-Rwanda 01

[Workingman]

Go ahead tower.

Clear to taxi to runway 27

Copy.

Tower to CB-R 01, hold position and await further instructions.

Copy.

And that was Tuesday's Rwanda deportations flight.

We hired a B 767 capable of taking 299 passengers and crew for an initial deportation of 37 'immigrants'. However, after legal challenges only seven were due to be on board. More late challenges reduced the number and grounded the flight.

We, you and me, paid £600k for the plane, and an unknown amount for the (already paid for) accommodation in Kigali, and nobody knows how much the legal challenges cost. This will go on and on.

Since the Rwanda plan was introduced there has been no reduction in channel boat crossings - they are 76% up on last year. 444 on Tuesday alone.

We might as well have put them up in the Savoy

[TheOstrich]

299 of those 444 should have been shipped straight out - no names, no pack drill, and certainly no lawyer representation. Coach from Dover to Boscombe Down. In and out within 24 hours.
It's the only way you are going to humanely deter economic migrants from crossing from France.

[Workingman]

Or we could invoke International law and send them back from whence they came: France.

They have already passed through numerous "safe" countries to ger to the channel. Turn them round and send them back.

Stop pissing about.

[medsec222]

There was an 'expert' on the television yesterday saying that if the UK comes out of the ECHR we will be the pariahs of Europe. Yet it was also stated, apparently, that other countries in Europe who are signed up to the ECHR don't always obey their rulings, France, German, and Spain were mentioned, with Spain only obeying their rulings 63% of the time. The other point raised is that appeals in this country go through hearings in various different Courts with named judges who explain their rulings, yet overnight an unnamed judge from the ECHR has effectively halted the plane taking off, and he may not even have been a qualified judge.

Human Rights has become a money making industry and the people profiting from it have no intention of letting it grind to a halt.

[victor]

100% agree with the Ostrich.

Also STOP Border Force from running a bloody taxi service

[Osc]

There was an 'expert' on the television yesterday saying that if the UK comes out of the ECHR we will be the pariahs of Europe.

Seeing as the UK and Winston Churchill were prime movers in setting up the ECHR, it would seem that way to many, quite apart from the damage it would do to the Good Friday Agreement. Also, how can soooooo many people (obviously nobody on here) make the assumption that just because it has the word European in its title, it is part of the EU? For the record, I think the Rwanda plan is disgusting, I still remember what Rwandans did to their own back in 1994.

[cromwell]

Tbh I think the Rwanda thing is gesture politics. No way are they going to send every illegal immigrant there.
Government seems hamstrung by lawyers, so the law needs to be sorted out first. There should be no right to stay here for anybody that we don't want to let in.
Anyone jumping out of a dinghy onto a beach here should be put straight back into another dinghy and towed back to France. If an international treaty forbids that then come out of the treaty and state why the treaty isn't working.

[Suff]

We don't need to send them all there, we just need to send enough to stop the flood then we can take the vulnerable.

Personally I think it is well engineered. Force the decision through the UK courts then lure the NGO's into the ECHR, who rush to block a legal move made by the UK government.

This turns public opinion against the ECHR and allows the government to withdraw.

This is a logical conclusion of Brexit and something which was touted as a benefit of leaving the EU.

Because the EU baked the ECHR into the TEU and TFEU, anyone wanting to leave the ECHR had to leave the EU first.

We have done the first step. Now we have the sovereign right to do the second.

Perhaps the "judge" who issued that decision should have thought about that because the potential. Consequences of his/her decision go Waaaay beyond one or two illegal immigrants.

After all when did the Uever need the ECHR? We banned slavery first, we, internally, granted the very laws which make it so hard to eject illegal migrants. We fought two wars outside our borders to stop totalitarian expansion of regimes and our laws will always be at the top of the fairness list.

It is time that the ECHR which has been taken over with Woke agenda, is removed from UK law. After all the ECHR was not set up to restrict the British, it was set up to bring Europe up to UK standards of fairness.

The UK government just pressed the buzzer and the ECHR dogs salivate.

Hell mend them.

Whilst we are on the subject of the good Friday accord, the pontificating US senators and representatives might want to consider that the US is not a signatory of the ECHR.

If it is such a wonderful thing, why not?

I'll tell you why not, because the US does not start wars of acquisition, just like the UK does not.

We finish them though......

[cromwell]

The trouble with human rights is that they don't apply to everyone, it only goes one way.
What about the human rights of the people of Linton on Ouse?
What about their right to leave free of fear in their own village? Dumping 1,500 young men on their doorstep from societies where women are regarded as being baby machines and second class citizens? How is that going to end?

[medsec222]

If the ECHR was indeed set up after World War 11 to protect people, for example, those who were targeted and imprisoned without legal representation, then the creation of the ECHR was indeed commendable and worthy of full support. However, this once commendable organisation becomes very dubious when an elected Government cannot deport, for example, a Nigeria criminal convicted of sexual assault, as it denied him his human rights to a family, and convicted terrorists such as Abu Qatada because it breached their right to liberty, and in fact, they were compensated for it. I am sure there are many other examples of when this Court has frustrated the British Government's attempts to deport undesirables from this country. What it expects the Government to do with such people, unsurprisingly it fails to address.

Every country has the right to control its borders and decide who is allowed to settle here and contribute to society and who is not entitled to settle here. The belief that migrants are fleeing for their lives from France is raised frequently as a reason for granting asylum to migrants, economic or otherwise. Not one of the people who raise their voices in criticism has actually put forward a workable plan to deal with a constant flow of migrants to this country, other than to imply that anyone who wishes to come to the UK should be allowed to settle here legitimately. This may be acceptable to some, but the majority of sane people in the UK want some control on the numbers that come into the country. We are a small country and uncontrolled migration will eventually over time only be detrimental the well-being of the indigenous population down the line to our grandchildren and their children, in terms of schooling, employment, health, etc.