Most of the people due to board a controversial deportation flight to Jamaica on Wednesday have been removed from the flight list, as anti-deportation activists have blocked the road in front of a detention centre to try to prevent them from being put on the plane.
Why weren't the police out moving them? Don't you control the police, Priti?
Originally more than 50 Jamaican nationals were due to fly, but the Guardian understands most are no longer on the passenger list. The flight was due to depart at 1am on Wednesday morning with only two or three passengers onboard.
What a waste of fuel. But on the other hand, at least we're getting rid of some...
The Home Office said: “Those individuals with no right to be in the UK and foreign national offenders should be in no doubt that we will do whatever is necessary to remove them. This is what the public rightly expects and why we regularly operate flights to different countries.”
Is that supposed to be reassuring when you only have a handful of people on them?
couldn't Doris have used his private jet - conned them they were going to glasgow, they wouldn't notice the direction and he could have stayed on for another freebie holiday! (this time with some excuse)
ReplyDeleteAren't the people obstructing deportation in contempt of court?
ReplyDeleteOr are they just uncertain where to get their drugs from if their dealers are deported?
Couldn't we have put the anti-deportation activists on the plane instead?
ReplyDeleteSplendid idea, Stonyground!!
ReplyDeleteIt appears that pretty well all the organs of state exist now merely to serve the vociferous 0.0005% of the populace. It's a true testament to our democracy that the views of the other 99.9995% are contemptuously sidelined, seemingly with impunity.
ReplyDeleteWere the "two or three passengers..." so horrible that even the anti-deportation activists wanted them gone?
ReplyDeleteTeresa May was the worst ever HS. Patel could machine gun an orphanage and still be better than her.
ReplyDeleteJaded
Perhaps the actual date of deportation should not be given out, to prevent the shyster lawyers making their last minute appeals, which they do just to prove they can make the authorities look incompetent while trousering shed loads of taxpayers cash in legal aid.
ReplyDeleteAlternatively, let the appeals take place from wherever the crims are deported to.
Penseivat
And our sorry excuse for a government has the defense of the realm as its primary duty. Says it all really and this is what passes for the rule of law?
ReplyDeleteTraducing a courageous Home Secretary from a safe position of security/obscurity with audacious gibberish, JuliaM? And just for good measure, flailing around in your blog mud, hoping some of it will land on Theresa May. (And please note the correct spelling of her Christian name for future calumniation.)
ReplyDeleteThe naivete of this blog offering brings to mind that wonderful Aesop Fable, The Donkey and the Lionskin. This particular rendition settles for an ass in a tigerskin.
"Aren't the people obstructing deportation in contempt of court?"
ReplyDeletePerhaps it's been decided contempt is a natural reaction to a court so hamstrung, and the legislation has been stealth amended?
"It appears that pretty well all the organs of state exist now merely to serve the vociferous 0.0005% of the populace. "
But they still demand the money of the other 99.9995% to pay for it all...
"Teresa May was the worst ever HS. Patel could machine gun an orphanage and still be better than her."
Controversial! 😆
"Traducing a courageous Home Secretary ..."
What exactly has she been 'courageous' about, MTG?