Clapham Alkaline Attack

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The safe country argument over Rwanda doesn't really work; it would be a business arrangement for them to keep the people that we send there that we would be paying them for. So they have to maintain some standard in terms of the living standards for people we send there or we'll have a sh1t storm in the UK.

That's why the wider politics of Rwanda aren't relevant.

Not really, and the Supreme Court made it abundantly clear - the problem is refoulement, namely there's a greater probability that a weak civil service in Rwanda will make the risk unacceptably high. Living standards there are only the basis of the whole discussion, not the whole shebang.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

11 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Not really, and the Supreme Court made it abundantly clear - the problem is refoulement, namely there's a greater probability that a weak civil service in Rwanda will make the risk unacceptably high. Living standards there are only the basis of the whole discussion, not the whole shebang.

Agree to disagree on that one.

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

27 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Agree to disagree on that one.

Not sure what there is to disagree with there. That was made very clear as part of the judgement. The notion of a safe third country is fine. That country has to have suitably robust procedures in place to ensure that refoulement does not take place for it to be classified as safe, Rwanda is not safe.

So, pick another country, or my suggestion would be to gradually increase capacity on some islands within the UK.

The Supreme Court’s Rwanda verdict and Rishi Sunak’s response: what happens next? | Institute for Government

Even better, here's a link to the Supreme Court decision itself. Introduction, paragraphs 4 and 5 are particularly telling regarding the notion of a safe third country and the notion of refoulement (which occurs 91 times in the report via a CTRL + F check) already mentioned.

uksc-2023-0093-etc-judgment.pdf (supremecourt.uk)

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

14 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Not sure what there is to disagree with there. That was made very clear as part of the judgement. The notion of a safe third country is fine. That country has to have suitably robust procedures in place to ensure that refoulement does not take place for it to be classified as safe, Rwanda is not safe.

So, pick another country, or my suggestion would be to gradually increase capacity on some islands within the UK.

The Supreme Court’s Rwanda verdict and Rishi Sunak’s response: what happens next? | Institute for Government

Even better, here's a link to the Supreme Court decision itself. Introduction, paragraphs 4 and 5 are particularly telling regarding the notion of a safe third country and the notion of refoulement (which occurs 91 times in the report via a CTRL + F check) already mentioned.

uksc-2023-0093-etc-judgment.pdf (supremecourt.uk)

Agree TGS.

However cutting to the chase - the whole idea of Rwanda as a deterrent surely must be based on it being a place you don't want to go? Ditto for any such 'third countries'.

Any country that was deemed 'safe' would likely not be so interested in taking in our dirty washing. The policy is simply flawed. 

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

6 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Agree TGS.

However cutting to the chase - the whole idea of Rwanda as a deterrent surely must be based on it being a place you don't want to go? Ditto for any such 'third countries'.

Any country that was deemed 'safe' would likely not be so interested in taking in our dirty washing. The policy is simply flawed. 

The whole notion of it being a deterrent is laughable. We're talking about people who are prepared to scramble across Europe, throw their life savings at traffickers to cross often dangerous channels of water in craft that are not always suitable for purpose. These people are willing to risk drowning/death to come here. Being taken to another country alive is already an improvement on that.

So, this notion of a deterrent makes no sense. What is needed, and I think Barbe made a fair point earlier, is to be able to process claims efficiently as there is one heck of a backlog, yet this government have shown themselves incapable and/or unwilling to handle that.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

2 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Not sure what there is to disagree with there. That was made very clear as part of the judgement. The notion of a safe third country is fine. That country has to have suitably robust procedures in place to ensure that refoulement does not take place for it to be classified as safe, Rwanda is not safe.

So, pick another country, or my suggestion would be to gradually increase capacity on some islands within the UK.

The Supreme Court’s Rwanda verdict and Rishi Sunak’s response: what happens next? | Institute for Government

Even better, here's a link to the Supreme Court decision itself. Introduction, paragraphs 4 and 5 are particularly telling regarding the notion of a safe third country and the notion of refoulement (which occurs 91 times in the report via a CTRL + F check) already mentioned.

uksc-2023-0093-etc-judgment.pdf (supremecourt.uk)

Agree to differ is a polite way of saying I can't be arsed with arguing with people who hide behind 'judges said this' as an argument when the law they're basing their judgement on is the problem. You obviously think all the international law that causes these judgements is fine. I think you're wrong. And YF can argue it's nothing to do with international law all he likes, but seeing as he doesn't even know what international law says on rights of religion, his opinion is of less import than the random guy from Reform he has fallen in love with as the ultimate pundit on the matter.

Rwanda is a politically stable country. As a tourist destination, it's one of the safest countries in Africa. It's only on questions of freedom of expression that it's sticky, but that simply isn't relevant as far as care of people we send there is concerned for the simple fact that harm to people we sent there would endanger the business transaction due to political fallout in the UK. That's nothing to to do with judges interpreting the inadequate law being applied; that's realpolitik.

And the value of an option like Rwanda is that the ones who are trying it on can always opt to go back where they came from instead of staying in Rwanda, and given that even misogynist sex offenders who think it's okay to throw corrosive substances at people can apparently qualify for asylum after three attempts these days, nobody with a genuine case will have anything to worry about.

 

Edited February 8 by littleyellowbirdie

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Agree to differ is a polite way of saying I can't be arsed with arguing with people who hide behind 'judges said this' as an argument when the law they're basing their judgement on is the problem. You obviously think all the international law that causes these judgements is fine. I think you're wrong. And YF can argue it's nothing to do with international law all he likes, but seeing as he doesn't even know what international law says on rights of religion, his opinion is of less import than the random guy from Reform he has fallen in love with as the ultimate pundit on the matter.

Rwanda is a politically stable country. As a tourist destination, it's one of the safest countries in Africa. It's only on questions of freedom of expression that it's sticky, but that simply isn't relevant as far as care of people we send there is concerned for the simple fact that harm to people we sent there would endanger the business transaction due to political fallout in the UK. That's nothing to to do with judges interpreting the inadequate law being applied; that's realpolitik.

And the value of an option like Rwanda is that the ones who are trying it on can always opt to go back where they came from instead of staying in Rwanda, and given that even misogynist sex offenders who think it's okay to throw corrosive substances at people can apparently qualify for asylum after three attempts these days, nobody with a genuine case will have anything to worry about.

 

Which is missing the key point, which is this: it is NOT a safe country for putting asylum seekers in temporarily because their procedures in handling such claims are well below the required standard. Its safety as a tourist destination is of marginal relevance in the whole matter, and to say it's "only" on questions of freedom of expression is wrong.

In this aspect Rwanda has been judged several times over to be unsafe, and that's the end of the story. Pick another country.

Q&A: The UK’s policy to send asylum seekers to Rwanda - Migration Observatory - The Migration Observatory (ox.ac.uk)

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

2 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Which is missing the key point, which is this: it is NOT a safe country for putting asylum seekers in temporarily because their procedures in handling such claims are well below the required standard. Its safety as a tourist destination is of marginal relevance in the whole matter, and to say it's "only" on questions of freedom of expression is wrong.

In this aspect Rwanda has been judged several times over to be unsafe, and that's the end of the story. Pick another country.

Q&A: The UK’s policy to send asylum seekers to Rwanda - Migration Observatory - The Migration Observatory (ox.ac.uk)

The required standards are whatever is contracted between Rwanda and the UK as part of the arrangement.

[Herman 9,838]

A bit more sewage floating off in the Thames??

[Fen Canary 874]

On 08/02/2024 at 23:14, TheGunnShow said:

The whole notion of it being a deterrent is laughable. We're talking about people who are prepared to scramble across Europe, throw their life savings at traffickers to cross often dangerous channels of water in craft that are not always suitable for purpose. These people are willing to risk drowning/death to come here. Being taken to another country alive is already an improvement on that.

So, this notion of a deterrent makes no sense. What is needed, and I think Barbe made a fair point earlier, is to be able to process claims efficiently as there is one heck of a backlog, yet this government have shown themselves incapable and/or unwilling to handle that.

It worked as a deterrent in Australia 

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

It worked as a deterrent in Australia 

Doesn't necessarily look like it as there were several different measures involved. Looks more like an adjacent policy of turning back boats did far more.

FactCheck: did Australian offshore asylum system reduce boat crossings? – Channel 4 News

[Fen Canary 874]

7 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Doesn't necessarily look like it as there were several different measures involved. Looks more like an adjacent policy of turning back boats did far more.

FactCheck: did Australian offshore asylum system reduce boat crossings? – Channel 4 News

Let’s do both then 

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

42 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Let’s do both then 

Pick a country that's up to the job then, as Rwanda's demonstrably not it. Whilst you're at it, improve facilities here too.

[Fen Canary 874]

8 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Pick a country that's up to the job then, as Rwanda's demonstrably not it. Whilst you're at it, improve facilities here too.

Nauru. We could take over the Aussies facilities if they’re done with it 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

14 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Doesn't necessarily look like it as there were several different measures involved. Looks more like an adjacent policy of turning back boats did far more.

FactCheck: did Australian offshore asylum system reduce boat crossings? – Channel 4 News

Turning back boats isn't possible in our instance because there are no international waters between the UK and France.

Does raise the possibility of dumping them on boats in international waters on the other side of the planet of course.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

I feel really sorry for people who try to write satire these days. Apparently Ezedi, our acid-attacking Christian fleeing persecution as a Christian, according to the church and the courts, got a Muslim burial at the request of friends and family.

 

[Naturalcynic 677]

4 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I feel really sorry for people who try to write satire these days. Apparently Ezedi, our acid-attacking Christian fleeing persecution as a Christian, according to the church and the courts, got a Muslim burial at the request of friends and family.

 

No surprise there.

[Fen Canary 874]

On 11/02/2024 at 00:20, littleyellowbirdie said:

Turning back boats isn't possible in our instance because there are no international waters between the UK and France.

Does raise the possibility of dumping them on boats in international waters on the other side of the planet of course.

Perhaps we could take over the Aussies facilities in Nauru if they’re done with it, or simply throw our asylum seekers in with theirs and bung them a few quid 

[A Load of Squit 5,223]

 

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

4 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

 

 

This technical correction does not alter the fact that Ezedi was granted asylum after a failed asylum request because of a claimed conversion to Christianity that he proved to the satisfaction of the courts, although not to the satisfaction of the Home Office who challenged the authenticity of the conversion.

Documents from his lawyer said Ezedi began attending Grange Road Baptist church in Jarrow, Tyne and Wear in February 2016, and did an Alpha course and was “baptised by total immersion” in June 2018. Church workers did also offer testimony in support of him for his successful appeal.

The Home Office's legal team did not accept his conversion was genuine and challenged it. The real problem for authorities is that the doubt raised by the claim he was Christian immediately makes return unlawful if there's any possibility he might be at risk; it puts the onus on the state to prove that he hasn't truly converted, which, of course, is impossible.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/26/clapham-chemical-attack-suspect-was-granted-asylum-despite-concerns-over-honesty

Edited April 12 by littleyellowbirdie