Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Wandering Minds » One way ticket to Rwanda - the right thing to do or not?

One way ticket to Rwanda - the right thing to do or not?

+4
Bolton Nuts
Whitesince63
wanderlust
Sluffy
8 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Go down  Message [Page 3 of 4]

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Hip Priest wrote:
Sluffy wrote:

Sorry, I was making a point and it came across much better adding the emphasis of the word 'even'.

I would have used it for anyone else who had raised a comment about this but apart from 63 and myself there was only you.

No offence intended.

Let me translate

Very Happy     :rofl:

Sorry I was making a point and when I make a point it's bloody right. I've spent hours on the internet checking stuff and even found a couple of great quotations that prove I'm right. The very fact that it takes forever to read my posts just confirms it.
Let's face it, I'm clearly intellectually superior to anybody on here. I'm sorry but I just can't entertain other posters challenging my obvious wisdom. (Especially intellectual lightweights like Wanderlust, Biggie and Okocha).

No offence intended.

I'll take that with the intention that is meant but I've never claimed to be smarter than anyone else although I have training and expertise in certain specialised fields and I'm not ashamed of doing a bit of research before I reply on many things (Christ it only usually takes a few seconds to do a google search).

As for posting a lot, I do so because I've a lifetime of backing up what I say with facts or references and because I've got more to say than Boris is a cunt or some such.

As for Wanderlust I don't doubt he's smart but his views are warped due to his hatred, Biggie is one of the brains on here - he was the one who set up this forum how it is today and he was the one who came up with the concept of Radio Nuts. He's currently providing live action goal clips on Nuts Twitter.  I also know him to be a decent bloke for some of the things he's done behind the scenes on here.  As for Okocha, I'm sure the person behind the account is smart enough, I just don't get whatever it is he is doing on here (have you ever notice he never talks about the football?).

At least you haven't shouted at me in capitals this time so I guess you must think I'm not as bad as I once was?

Anyway how's your lad doing, not heard from him in a while, hope he's fine?

okocha

okocha
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

Hip Priest wrote:

Let me translate

Very Happy     :rofl:

Sorry I was making a point and when I make a point it's bloody right. I've spent hours on the internet checking stuff and even found a couple of great quotations that prove I'm right. The very fact that it takes forever to read my posts just confirms it.
Let's face it, I'm clearly intellectually superior to anybody on here. I'm sorry but I just can't entertain other posters challenging my obvious wisdom. (Especially intellectual lightweights like Wanderlust, Biggie and Okocha).

No offence intended.
Very Happy

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Whitesince63 wrote:Yep, just about sums up Sluffy. 😉

Hip Priest

Hip Priest
Andy Walker
Andy Walker

Sluffy wrote:

I'll take that with the intention that is meant but I've never claimed to be smarter than anyone else although I have training and expertise in certain specialised fields and I'm not ashamed of doing a bit of research before I reply on many things (Christ it only usually takes a few seconds to do a google search).

As for posting a lot, I do so because I've a lifetime of backing up what I say with facts or references and because I've got more to say than Boris is a cunt or some such.

As for Wanderlust I don't doubt he's smart but his views are warped due to his hatred, Biggie is one of the brains on here - he was the one who set up this forum how it is today and he was the one who came up with the concept of Radio Nuts. He's currently providing live action goal clips on Nuts Twitter.  I also know him to be a decent bloke for some of the things he's done behind the scenes on here.  As for Okocha, I'm sure the person behind the account is smart enough, I just don't get whatever it is he is doing on here (have you ever notice he never talks about the football?).

At least you haven't shouted at me in capitals this time so I guess you must think I'm not as bad as I once was?

Anyway how's your lad doing, not heard from him in a while, hope he's fine?

Yeah, sorry sluff. The lad's fine and thanks for asking. I promised myself a few weeks ago that I wasn't going to get involved in this kind of stuff anymore but that's what a few beers does for you. I'm mellowing in my old age (67 this week) so I've given up on threatening people with capital letters.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Hip Priest wrote:
Yeah, sorry sluff. The lad's fine and thanks for asking. I promised myself a few weeks ago that I wasn't going to get involved in this kind of stuff anymore but that's what a few beers does for you. I'm mellowing in my old age (67 this week) so I've given up on threatening people with capital letters.

Don't worry mate insults have never bothered me and it just made me laugh when I saw your rant in capitals.

Happy Birthday to you hope you have a great day this week.

Say hi to your son for me when you see him.  I always thought he was a good poster and he used to make me laugh with his tales of meeting the players in Asda!

I don't think he had much time for me on here in the end but fwiw I never had a problem with him really.

I can imagine he's got far better things to do with his time these days but I'm sure if he could spare a moment or two to post every now and again we'd all be pleased to hear from him.

You're 67 this time are you, good age...

...unfortunately though you've still got another three more years to go in Wanderlusts JUNIORS side before you are ready to play twice a week competitive football along side him - Monday at 8pm and Friday at 6pm don't forget.

Bring you own Zimmer frame, err I mean lace up boots, err I mean Velcro slippers...!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:birthday:

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Round 1 - The Government wins!

Rwanda asylum plan: UK court allows removal flight planned for Tuesday

A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court.

Campaigners failed in an initial legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but have confirmed they will take the case to the Court of Appeal on Monday.

Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there.

About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

There will be a full judicial review, where the High Court will hear a challenge to the policy as a whole, before the end of July, it heard.

In his decision, the judge Mr Justice Swift accepted there was a "material public interest" in Home Secretary Priti Patel being able to carry out her policies.

Ms Patel praised his judgement and said the government would go ahead with its plans, while Prime Minister Boris Johnson described the ruling as "welcome news".

However, campaigners who brought the case expressed concern for the welfare of people set to be "forcibly deported".


In his judgement, Mr Justice Swift ruled against a temporary block on the deportation flights before the full hearing on the policy in July.

He said he did not consider there was any evidence there would be "ill-treatment, refoulement" or anything that violated their rights under article three of the UK's Human Rights Act.

Article three protects people from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and deportation or extradition to a country where there is a real risk they will face torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.

Mr Justice Swift said part of the case to block the initial flights focused on the argument that Ms Patel's "decision to treat Rwanda as a safe country is either irrational or based on insufficient investigation".

He said this argument, along with other parts of the case, would be heard with evidence at the full judicial review - to be held across two days before the end of July.

But Mr Justice Swift noted that, while the campaigners had enough evidence for a review, their claim was "not conspicuously strong".

He also denied interim relief to two people who face removal on Tuesday, one from Syria and another from Iraq, who are still set to be on the plane to Rwanda.

"I accept that the fact of removal to Rwanda will be onerous," he added.

However, the judge granted the campaigners and migrants the right to appeal against his decision and said the Court of Appeal would be able to hear their case on Monday.

Full article here -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61763818

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

I see Prince Charles has stuck his oar in.

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

The Public and Commercial Services union (PCS), which represents more than 80% of Border Force staff, and charities Care4Calais and Detention Action will challenge in the Court of Appeal on Monday the High Court’s ruling on Friday that the first flight to the east African country can go ahead.

A second case is due to be heard in the High Court after Asylum Aid, a refugee charity, applied for an urgent interim injunction to stop the Government flying migrants to Rwanda.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

wanderlust wrote:The Public and Commercial Services union (PCS), which represents more than 80% of Border Force staff, and charities Care4Calais and Detention Action will challenge in the Court of Appeal on Monday the High Court’s ruling on Friday that the first flight to the east African country can go ahead.

A second case is due to be heard in the High Court after Asylum Aid, a refugee charity, applied for an urgent interim injunction to stop the Government flying migrants to Rwanda.

???

Errr thank you for your post I guess but I did actually state about the court appeal held today in my post above from Friday!

Sluffy wrote:However, the judge granted the campaigners and migrants the right to appeal against his decision and said the Court of Appeal would be able to hear their case on Monday.

Anyway it has already been heard and the judge as ordered that it will go ahead as planned.

UK judges refuse Rwanda asylum flight appeal

Appeal court judges refuse to stop Home Office flight to Rwanda taking asylum seekers from UK

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61789982

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

The Court of Appeal is set to decide later if the Home Office flight can depart as scheduled on Tuesday.
Campaigners and migrants last week failed to win an injunction against the government policy in the High Court.
But the planned number of removals has rapidly reduced, with 11 due to be on the first flight, the court heard.
A Home Office source told the BBC that, of the original 37 scheduled to fly, legal challenges relating to modern slavery and human rights claims have drastically reduced that number.
On Friday it emerged six people had their removal notices cancelled, while the Care4Calais charity has confirmed a further 20 planned removals were called off over the weekend.
This leaves 11 people still set to fly to east Africa on Tuesday, including four Iranians, two Iraqis, two Albanians and one Syrian, the charity said. The nationalities of the other two have not been revealed.

11 people. That's not even half a boatload.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

wanderlust wrote:The Court of Appeal is set to decide later if the Home Office flight can depart as scheduled on Tuesday.
Campaigners and migrants last week failed to win an injunction against the government policy in the High Court.
But the planned number of removals has rapidly reduced, with 11 due to be on the first flight, the court heard.
A Home Office source told the BBC that, of the original 37 scheduled to fly, legal challenges relating to modern slavery and human rights claims have drastically reduced that number.
On Friday it emerged six people had their removal notices cancelled, while the Care4Calais charity has confirmed a further 20 planned removals were called off over the weekend.
This leaves 11 people still set to fly to east Africa on Tuesday, including four Iranians, two Iraqis, two Albanians and one Syrian, the charity said. The nationalities of the other two have not been revealed.

11 people. That's not even half a boatload.

????

Yes we know - I've already posted the result of the appeal in the post above!!!

..dunno..

Whitesince63


Andy Walker
Andy Walker

It’s actually now 8 people who will fly to Rwanda tomorrow but the important thing is that both appeals were turned down which must bode well for the future. Hopefully these 8 will be the first of a rapidly increasing number because there’s no doubt it would send a message to those trying to come here.

Going forward, why can’t the government just introduce a law that moves the responsibility for immigrants winning cases, to the Union or charity fighting the case? Why should the taxpayer be held responsible for funding people who’ve arrived here illegally and who the government tried to move out but failed because these organisations were able to invent spurious reasons for them to stay. The number of challenges would soon reduce if the various organisations had to suffer the cost of housing and feeding them themselves instead of heaping them on the taxpayer? Easier still, why don’t the government just adopt the French and Spanish attitude of giving them nothing. That’s about the only thing I can agree with Macron on, we are just too generous and creating the problem for ourselves.

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Pretty much amounts to a private jet Smile

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

This ridiculous scheme is not going to stop people trying to get here, if anything it will step up even more dangerous ways the smugglers will try to get people in.

As for a waste of taxpayers money, who's paying for a flight with 8 people on?

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

The number on the plane isn't the important point, it is establishing the legality to actually do this.

If there was only one person on this first flight it is a massive legal victory and establishes in law the right to do this.

There should have been around 100 illegal immigrants on the flight and the 'ambulance chasing' do good lawyers have appealed against over 90 of them from going (these lawyers don't do this for free you know?) - but not all of those 90 will win their appeals - so the next flight will have say a hundred more new illegal immigrants booked on it and the spaces of any appealing and getting off the plane, filled with those from the first plane who have since lost their appeals - so slowly after a flight or two, the planes will get fuller and fuller.

The big thing for now is that the flights can go ahead (and based on what the judge said in the first ruling will likely continue after the full Judicial Review to come).

This is only the start and it matters not for now if the plane takes off with just one person aboard - its the legal right that has now been established.

Remember also that all these illegals seeking safe refuge in our country have travelled through many, many safe country's such as France to get here in the first place - if it is just safety they wanted then why not claim it there???

Whitesince63


Andy Walker
Andy Walker

Surely Judges and lawyers can only implement the laws laid down by Parliament, not make new ones themselves? Has the current decision to send immigrants to Rwanda actually been passed by Parliament as a definitive law or is it just a decision by Pritti and Boris because if not, it’s obviously going to be challenged legally? As we’re still also tied to the ECHR, it gives objectors to deportation every opportunity to come up with more and more scams to keep them here. As I said earlier, is it not possible to create a law that passes the responsibility for migrants winning cases to be the responsibility of the organisation fighting for them instead of the taxpayer, who through the government wanted them gone, or am I just being stupid again?? 🥴

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Norpig wrote:This ridiculous scheme is not going to stop people trying to get here, if anything it will step up even more dangerous ways the smugglers will try to get people in.

As for a waste of taxpayers money, who's paying for a flight with 8 people on?
I'll bet there's not going to be a 36 hour delay or cancellation due to staff shortages - after all 20 thousand UK holidaymakers haven't been able to get a flight.

And now they're prioritising refugees? The Benidorm regulars will be up in arms Smile

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Whitesince63 wrote:Surely Judges and lawyers can only implement the laws laid down by Parliament, not make new ones themselves? Has the current decision to send immigrants to Rwanda actually been passed by Parliament as a definitive law or is it just a decision by Pritti and Boris because if not, it’s obviously going to be challenged legally? As we’re still also tied to the ECHR, it gives objectors to deportation every opportunity to come up with more and more scams to keep them here. As I said earlier, is it not possible to create a law that passes the responsibility for migrants winning cases to be the responsibility of the organisation fighting for them instead of the taxpayer, who through the government wanted them gone, or am I just being stupid again?? 🥴

Parliament makes the laws, judges rule on the application of it.

In simple terms the courts are being asked if the government are applying the legislation correctly - this is done by means of something called a Judicial Review (JR).

An application has been made by somebody (I've not been following this in any detail) for the courts to rule on whether the government is applying the law correctly by sending illegal refugees to Rwanda and it has been deemed by a judge that there is just enough in their argument in law for it to be looked into - this is done at a JR where they on one side and the government on the other, putting forward their legal cases as to why it should/shouldn't be done to send these people to another country for processing their rights to be allowed into the UK.

The JR date has been set after the first flight was planned, so the current legal battle was to stop the flights until after the JR had been determined.

The argument for this delay was on the grounds that the illegal immigrants transported to Rwanda would be at risk in that country - the judge found no evidence to support that claim and order the flight to continue.  This judgement was appealed and yesterday's hearing again upheld that there was no evidence of risk shown and ordered the flight to continue.

As for laws themselves, they are incrementally developed over the centuries based on common law (the rights everybody have) and case law, when a judge has had to rule on a point of law that hadn't been contested before.

It is important to be aware that Parliament who makes the laws and the judiciary who rule on them are completely independent of one another.

So no, it would be impossible for Parliament to create a law that would hold the 'do gooders' to be financially responsible for the illegals they 'get off' which would be upheld by the courts as there is a whole history of legal presidents against going in such a direction.

It's all about checks and balances.

You only need look at other country's (including Trump's America) to see what happens when the executive takes (or attempts to take) control of the judiciary.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

wanderlust wrote:
Norpig wrote:This ridiculous scheme is not going to stop people trying to get here, if anything it will step up even more dangerous ways the smugglers will try to get people in.

As for a waste of taxpayers money, who's paying for a flight with 8 people on?
I'll bet there's not going to be a 36 hour delay or cancellation due to staff shortages - after all 20 thousand UK holidaymakers haven't been able to get a flight.

And now they're prioritising refugees? The Benidorm regulars will be up in arms Smile

It's a private chartered flight and will be flown well away from the scheduled tourist flights that the holiday makers will be on.

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Whitesince63 wrote:Surely Judges and lawyers can only implement the laws laid down by Parliament, not make new ones themselves?

As morally repugnant the concept is, the issue for judges is that they are not there to make moral judgements (allegedly) - they have to base decisions on the law - in this case the Nationality and Borders Act passed by our morally repugnant Government in April.

Those who wish to prevent specific refugees from being deported need to get a lot smarter and focus on the criteria being met.

The key things about the act are that it considerably raises the threshhold of proof to seek asylum, minimises resources to defend applicants and penalises late evidence.

Basically if someone comes from a war zone, they have to prove that they were at risk in order to be allowed to stay here - and the reality is that if you are fleeing a war zone you tend to grab clothes and essentials and run rather than take photos of your family being murdered.
There may be such evidence that you can get from elsewhere but the act has limited the timeframe to get it.
Just because your entire village has been bombed out and everyone else is dead doesn't cut it any more.
And you have to come directly to the UK - as if bombed out Syrians can get a direct flight.


This is what the Law Society says about it.

Basically we can only give asylum to rich people under this law.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 3 of 4]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Wandering Minds » One way ticket to Rwanda - the right thing to do or not?

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum