News1 min ago
Common Sense At Last
https:/
We need to care for our own in these turbulent times , for example our ex servicemen sleeping rough on our streets , and show that the gravy train is going nowhere
We need to care for our own in these turbulent times , for example our ex servicemen sleeping rough on our streets , and show that the gravy train is going nowhere
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bobbisox1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
https:/
The gravy train is still stopping at all stations near Westminster.
The gravy train is still stopping at all stations near Westminster.
only overruled by the ECHR. When that body no longer has that power, I'll believe it. Until then I won't hold my breath.
well you can breathe
ECtHR isnt in the hierarchy of English courts - so over ruling as we know it doesnt occur
see
https:/
usual caveat ( bit of Latin, long words, many pages ) AND doesnt look as tho abrogating the treaty is a go-er
well you can breathe
ECtHR isnt in the hierarchy of English courts - so over ruling as we know it doesnt occur
see
https:/
usual caveat ( bit of Latin, long words, many pages ) AND doesnt look as tho abrogating the treaty is a go-er
//Until then I won't hold my breath.//
Me neither.
I still stand by my original prediction that if anybody is deported to Rwanda under this scheme I will be extremely surprised. Having said that, with this ruling there may now be one or two token deportations to show “how well it is working” but I doubt even that will happen. The “small print” in the ruling should be examined before any celebrations occur:
“However, [the judge] said the home secretary should look at people's "particular circumstances" before deporting them to the central African country.”
"The home secretary must consider properly the circumstances of each individual claimant. The home secretary must decide if there is anything about each person's particular circumstances which means that his asylum claim should be determined in the United Kingdom or whether there are other reasons why he should not be relocated to Rwanda.”
So stand by for multifarious appeals (including to the ECHR and the accompanying £££s in legal costs) concerning individual “particular circumstances.”
//It they want the British way of life maybe the Falklands would have been better.//
No, no, no. The Falkland Islanders are very fortunate in that they still maintain what can be termed a “British way of life.” I know because I’ve been there. Just because successive governments have ballsed up many people’s lifestyles in the UK, that is no reason to suggest they should do likewise to a place that is still reasonably decent (apart from the weather).
Me neither.
I still stand by my original prediction that if anybody is deported to Rwanda under this scheme I will be extremely surprised. Having said that, with this ruling there may now be one or two token deportations to show “how well it is working” but I doubt even that will happen. The “small print” in the ruling should be examined before any celebrations occur:
“However, [the judge] said the home secretary should look at people's "particular circumstances" before deporting them to the central African country.”
"The home secretary must consider properly the circumstances of each individual claimant. The home secretary must decide if there is anything about each person's particular circumstances which means that his asylum claim should be determined in the United Kingdom or whether there are other reasons why he should not be relocated to Rwanda.”
So stand by for multifarious appeals (including to the ECHR and the accompanying £££s in legal costs) concerning individual “particular circumstances.”
//It they want the British way of life maybe the Falklands would have been better.//
No, no, no. The Falkland Islanders are very fortunate in that they still maintain what can be termed a “British way of life.” I know because I’ve been there. Just because successive governments have ballsed up many people’s lifestyles in the UK, that is no reason to suggest they should do likewise to a place that is still reasonably decent (apart from the weather).
Almost all of the population of the Falkland Islands lives on East Falkland, with about 80% of the population living in the capital, Port Stanley. A small number (less than 200, I think) live on the other large island, West Falkland. I am not aware of any of the other islands being permanently inhabited.
The total population of the islands is less than 3,500. When you consider that number of people arrive in the UK by rubber boat most weeks when the weather is decent, you can see it is a non-starter to think of sending them there (not that the Falklands' government would put up with it anyway).
The total population of the islands is less than 3,500. When you consider that number of people arrive in the UK by rubber boat most weeks when the weather is decent, you can see it is a non-starter to think of sending them there (not that the Falklands' government would put up with it anyway).
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
News2 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
News6 mins ago
The Prince Of Darkness To Be U S...
News9 mins ago
