Deportation flight to Jamaica departs without 37 of the 50 passengers due to fly !!

Yet another example of various groups over -riding rulings .

https://news.sky.com/story/deportat...of-the-50-passengers-due-to-fly-12148834

A deportation flight has left the UK for Jamaica carrying a quarter of the passengers who were due to leave the country.

The Home Office said 13 people were on the scheduled flight which was originally due to carry 50 passengers.

The 13 had combined jail terms of more than 100 years, including three convicted of murder, another of manslaughter, while others had been sentenced for crimes like grooming, drug dealing, burglary and robbery, it said.

A number of last-minute legal challenges were launched by campaign groups and human rights lawyers which meant many of the 50 passengers did not board the plane .......... and more to read

They need to set an appeal deadline. The appeals are purposely being left to the last minute to waste a lot of public money in the hope that they frustrate the whole deportation system into non-existence.

The separation of families argument is null and void in severe criminal cases as far as I'm concerned and is also highly discriminatory.

This isn't the first time. 28 stopped by human rights lawyers at the last minute in November and numerous others , many from Southern Asia.
The lawyers make a fortune at the expense of the country, it's a nice little earner for them.
On the flip side, the same human rights activists and lawyers are calling for Shamima Begum to be allowed back to face court proceedings here, as she can't from anywhere else.
If it happens (which it will) that will no doubt be another case to secure her passage, entry and allow her to stay indefinitely. At the same time, by last November , out of 900 Britons who fought for ISIS, 40% have returned to UK .

It's one big joke , and next the 'drum beaters' will wonder why the crime rate is rising, blame it on lack of police and we'll be spending a fortune by keeping a watchful eye on all this bad blood.

Meanwhile France is calling for border controls. So much for Schengen, but apparently it can happen under the Schengen agreement on a temporary basis.

Turkey repatriating ISIS fighters and their families to Germany, and little old UK can't send illegal migrants, who are murderers, drug traffickers and 'grooming' experts , back home.
Doesn;t matter where they come from and it's not a 'black' only problem. (nearly put coloured ! )

All serious criminals should be deported, end of.
Not surprised to see Corbyn and Abbot on the 'against deportation list'.

There are valid viewpoints eg would it resolve anything if all criminals were sent back to their hometown?

Yes , less for us to deal with, got enough of our own .

So for instance a criminal in London who was born in Birkenhead gets sent back to Birkenhead - does that resolve anything?

Sending criminal back to Countries where there is already considerable hardship for the good people that live there is a double whammy for those people.

Give me prison colonies and death sentences for serious criminals - that does resolve an issue as opposed to moving the problem on and burying your head in the sand. And despite what is commonly communicated - it would act as a deterrent to many.

Thought the post was about deporting criminals back to their own countries, emphasis on the word countries....

Its just the same, moving a problem from one place to another doesn't resolve anything

Putting it in a local context brings home how poor the attitude of "not on my doorstep" is instead of "lets sort this out".

As a temporary measure I am all in favour of deportation - but we need to have an objective of resolving all crime, not running away or accepting it.

To condemn those that are trying to resolve the matter is perverse.

Half of them were criminals before they arrived here in th UK. Running away from the law in their own lands.

Nobody is resolving anything, but probably make our streets and homes and the lives of our children more dangerous than needs be.
You think that stopping deportations is a resolve ? Resolve for whom ? Great for the lawyers able to get Legal Aid .

Where does one draw the line ? Migrant murderers can stay but ISIS murderers are not wanted back in their home land !

You just argue for the sake of it DD, and probably because Corbyn and Abbott were part of the merry band of fixers.
Had the fixers been Boris and Patel, you would have taken an opposing view..... and you know you would have.

Not so much that as I am wary that a lot of these low quantity incidents and facts are used as a blown up smokescreen to hide bigger problems that nothing is being done to address.

While murders were reducing substantially for a number of years, they are on the increase again (they will probably top 1000 a year sometime in the next few years), but that pails into insignificance against the number of people that severely injured through crime.

In 2017/18 there were about 16,000 payments made under the criminal injuries compensation scheme, and that is only a fraction of those that received criminal injuries.

Why are we indoctrinated to know Corbyn's stance when no mention is made of most of the Cabinet's opinions who are in a position of power and influence over these matters? Tell me that is not a smokescreen!

Probably because : quote " The signatories, which included Diane Abbott, Jeremy Corbyn, Caroline Lucas and John McDonnell, said: "Deportations epitomise the Government's continued Hostile Environment agenda."

Speaking in the Lords on Tuesday, former Conservative minister Lord Vaizey of Didcot pointed out that the deportations were taking place under legislation passed by the last Labour government and that the removals to Jamaica made up only a very small percentage of those undertaken each year. "

It also states in the article that many of those who should have been deported had already served 12 months sentences for some very serious crimes. So, are they back in prison, and what were their sentences passed down ? Another 15 yrs ? 20 yrs? and are the Human Rights Lawyers going to argue the case for them to stay here behind bars, or for them to be free to wander the streets after serving just 12 months of their senteneces ?

Law abiding people are told to leave for numerous reasons and may appeal these decisions. For these hard line criminals, they should not be given this appeal process and should know the rules when they first enter the country.

"Under UK immigration law (s32 UK Borders Act 2007) a foreign national may be subject to ‘automatic deportation’ if he or she has been convicted of an offence in the UK, and sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 12 months or more. This is because their deportation is automatically considered to be beneficial to public good."

Worryingly, you are exempt from deportation from the UK if you have continuously lived in the UK for 5 years or more prior to the offence.

@ DD. That's a cop out then.

Commit a crime, wait 18 months for court and conviction, go to prison for 3.5 years and come out free . Does this apply to all illegal migrants ?
If so, why is there a process for Asylum status and Refugee status. Just tell them to commit a crime..

The current deportation rules were brought in during 2012 around the middle of Cameron's reign.

I don't think there is a 5 year residential immunity per se. You can apply for naturalisation after 5 years of residency (or 3 years if you are married to a UK citizen). If you haven't obtain naturalisation then I would assume you aren't immune never mind how long you have been resident except for certain exempted groups.

Once you are naturalised then clearly the only country you can be deported to is the UK as that is then the only country of relevance.

I have just been looking at this, and it seems the current rules are part of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). 47 states of Europe are signed up to it, including Russia.

Incidentally, we will still be bound by its rules when we leave the EU because it is a different legal system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

As an add on, this is the sort of rubbish that gets people annoyed.

Haven't got enough money to buy warm winter clothes with !!! Neither have the pensioners in this country, and many more.

https://politicaluk.co.uk/2020/12/h...m8EJcXBV7ibQNwb0I7rTaUzYXD9QgqpDsjP6zoQI

" A solicitor for Duncan Lewis said: “It has been a month since the Home Office announced the decision, and none of our clients have received the increase in cash support and no arrangements have been put in place to obtain back payments,” said Primisha Chudasama, a solicitor for Duncan Lewis.

“Many clients have faced a significant deterioration in their mental health and sense of self-worth, particularly as they are constantly worrying about how they are going to meet their essential living needs,” she said. “Often, clients have had to choose between phone credit … and buying warm clothing for the winter months, or using public transport to attend important appointments.”

Yet again down to poor Governance, the Government set the rules, if those rules are so poor that they can be challenged successfully in a court of law then its a failure by those who set the rules.

There are a lot of highly paid people setting those rules, what are we paying them for, failure!

We seem to have been locked into setting laws that are either ineffective or unenforceable for many years now, not only does it waste a lot of money it also takes up a lot of parliament time which could be used on other matters of importance which are continually sidestepped.

And yes, I will blame many Governments for this, the growth of spin-doctors, especially during the Blair years has a lot to answer for.