Current Affairs The Conservative Party

[Marius57]

Except the judges didn't find that any asylum seekers would be subject to any such treatment in Rwanda. They said there was the possibility that asylum seekers could be sent from Rwanda back to their home country and then be subject to that treatment. So the judges are splitting hairs.

The government even produced a declaration from Rwanda that this couldn't happen and still the judges ruled in this way. Hence the government is appealing to the Supreme Court now.

If the government loses and they are unable to exercise their sovereign powers due to the courts reliance on ECHR - then ECHR will have to go.

Substantial evidence that their asylum claims will not be fairly assessed and they are risk of refoulment based off Rwanda’s ‘inadequate’ asylum system which therefore means that it is unsafe for them to go to Rwanda. It’s hardly rocket science to understand.

Even the UNHCR only temporarily places Libyan refugees there before resettling them in another country.

And assurances are great, but they haven’t shown any evidence of change by the looks of it.

 

[tsubaki]

And you think is a good outcome? Jeez, you are all over the place.

one of those anti-establishment pro-government types that we all know and love

 

[tsubaki]

Somewhat unbelievably, they are apparently looking to cut the Army even more:

Head of British army could quit in row over further cuts

Gen Sir Patrick Sanders is said to have told defence secretary that the army cannot take more reductions

www.theguardian.com

 

[JammyP]

Its the High Court that has ruled. Nowt to do with ECHR.

Applying the Human Rights Act 1998 which made Convention Rights available in UK law, without having to apply to the ECtHR at Strasbourg. It works very well.

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

No. I said the ruling was by the UK High Court. Unless I am mistaken the rabid Tory brexetiers have not removed the ECHR legislation from our legal process yet. That is a sovereign decision taken by the UK elected government.

And even if they have/did, not wanting folk deported to be tortured (article 3) is sommet you would support, no?

Utter tool/troll.

Ban him Roydo!

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

We need the peoples mod to deliver righteous justice here.

 

[Marius57]

We need the peoples mod to deliver righteous justice here.

BRING THE HAMMER!

 

[ChesterBlue]

Except the judges didn't find that any asylum seekers would be subject to any such treatment in Rwanda. They said there was the possibility that asylum seekers could be sent from Rwanda back to their home country and then be subject to that treatment. So the judges are splitting hairs.

The government even produced a declaration from Rwanda that this couldn't happen and still the judges ruled in this way. Hence the government is appealing to the Supreme Court now.

If the government loses and they are unable to exercise their sovereign powers due to the courts reliance on ECHR - then ECHR will have to go.

I am in utter shock that you of all people, being the sane and well-informed poster that you are, are pro-concentration camp and anti-human rights.

 

[summerisle]

Deckchairs and Titanic come to mind.

 

[Rita_Poon]

zac goldsmith resigns. the boris boomers rumble on.

 

[mahermi1]

Deckchairs and Titanic come to mind.

There are jobs going in Rwanda Suella enjoy

 

[Blue 1]

You said the decision had nothing to do with ECHR?

I've just explained that it does and why judges are overstepping their authority. They are determining UK government policy by relying on the possibility that an asylum seeker could be sent back to a country where they are mistreated - even though the UK government has a promise from the government of Rwanda this won't happen. For the tiny chance that it could happen - UK law and policy is decided by judges. A parliamentary system cannot abide judicial over reach. Parliament is sovereign, not the courts.

 

[spectateur]

Having been watching what's been happening in France over the past 24 hours, and with what happened in Cardiff recently, I think we're really close to seeing 2011 level riots in major UK capital cities.

Still going on. The interior minister called them voyous ,hooligans.
The anarchists are well in there, same uniforms as seen at all the trouble spots.
Personally I can't see anything good to come out of it, they're destroying their local environment and point taken the police execution was an evil thing to do.

 

[Nightman]

Still going on. The interior minister called them voyous ,hooligans.
The anarchists are well in there, same uniforms as seen at all the trouble spots.
Personally I can't see anything good to come out of it, they're destroying their local environment and point taken the police execution was an evil thing to do.

Am I right in thinking you live out there? I've been reading that the rioting is spreading beyond Paris now. I think I saw Marseille mentioned?

Awful scenes but it seems that it was an actual execution by the officer, as you say. Is there any reports yet on what will happen to the officer?

 

[Rita_Poon]

Am I right in thinking you live out there? I've been reading that the rioting is spreading beyond Paris now. I think I saw Marseille mentioned?

Awful scenes but it seems that it was an actual execution by the officer, as you say. Is there any reports yet on what will happen to the officer?

"charged with homicide and is in custody" 667 arrets overnight, bbc carried city names earlier, seem to have rode back on that for now.