Another fine mess…

The first batch 130 deportees is now down to 5 or 6, or none.

ECHR has granted a stop on the whole flight.

Of course, this could  have been the result that the UK government wanted all along - it can now blame ECHR for meddling in internal UK affairs and use it as leverage to exit the convention - which, let’s face it they have wanted to do all along.


I have heard that there will be 65-70 Rwandans on the return flight as part of the exchange program.

Piss up and brewery comes to mind. Truss an Johnson were very vocal today but Patel has kept a low profile.

There will undoubtedly be lots of conflating the ECHR with the EU, plus calls for the UK to ditch the ECHR… I wonder how many of these right-wing knuckle-draggers are aware that Churchill was instrumental in setting up the ECHR and, more importantly, that it’s a fundamental part of the Good Friday Agreement :rofl:


Already the BBC in their breakfast propaganga, sorry, “news” programme are saying “Is it right that a court in Strasbourg dictates to the UK”.

Yes it bloomin’ well is :rage:


It’s not been a good week for Johnson and team, and it’s only Wednesday. The question for me is how much damage will he do before beimg turfed out. At the rate quite a bit IMO.

I have long been a fan of Fintan O’Toole and his writings, and agree with the vast majority of what he says here. But to link Johnson and his antics unfavourably to Johnny Depp’s is unwise.
I haven’t been following the Depp/Heard thing in detail but I do know that much of it relies on he says she says and little is proved in either direction.
But I must declare an interest. As a former victim of female aggression and the lack of police support because ‘as a man I should have been able to batter her into submission’ I do object to the automatic acceptance of the female view of things. Apparently not, in Virginia at least, it seems.

1 Like

Yes David, I didn’t really follow the Depp/Heard circus but I have been a bit surprised at the backlash against the conclusion. From the little I did note it seemed the correct outcome to me.

I regularly read O’Tool’s column in the Irish Times and he’s usually sound on Anglo-Irish affairs but a lot more suspect on other issues :roll_eyes:

In poor old blighty, anything beginning with E for European has now to be religiously vilified, slammed, ignored, blamed or boycotted.

1 Like

Classic. :rofl:

Why isn’t Pritti on the inaugural flight to ensure its safe arrival?


You said it. It was valid in 1951 but needs seriously updating now to adapt to current circumstances.

What human rights that were deemed critical in 1951 would you consider dropping now Anne?

Don’t you agree that with people like Orbán, Erdoğan, Duda and even in the UK, a lying autocratic buffoon in power (who has no respect for national or international law) that the European Convention on Human Rights is needed more now than ever? In fact we need to strengthen it IMO.

My understanding is it was introduced (primarily by the UK) to attempt to restrain creatures like the above running amok. We saw where that ended up last time around and we can see today from Ukraine how quickly things can go pear shaped with horrendous results.

1 Like

In 1951 peoples’ motives were clearly to escape terrible abuse and their means of escape were limited. Today, we have many many more people leaving countries as economic migrants. Not to mention that they are escaping a safe country, eg France…
I am sure that in an ideal world, people could live wherever they fancied, but that kind of open door policy would destroy a country’s ability to provide services for its population and ultimately it would become survival of the fittest.

So what *specific* changes would you make?

Just how many times do we have to explain that asylum seekers do not have to claim asylum in he first safe country that they reach

How often do we have to remind people that France is not perfect if you have brown skin so many might not feel safe there?


Oh come on…