Should Rishi Sunak push on with Rwanda plan? | UK News

Readers are scratching their heads over the prime minister’s insistence on ploughing through with the asylum seekers’ relocation scheme to Rwanda – yes, the one the Supreme Court ruled as ‘unlawful’.

As one reader points out: it would be cheaper and more humane to fix the backlog of asylum cases, than it would be to deport them to Rwanda and have to send them back due to unsafe conditions.

Readers are also discussing their experience of participating in peace marches (or, ‘hate marches’ if you’ve heard Suella Braverman’s perspective), for an end to the conflict between Israel and Hamas.

What do you think about our readers’ letters today?

Share your thoughts in the comments.

Are the Conservative Party making their own rules?

This is so Tory. You can’t send refugees to Rwanda as it is unlawful, so you look to change the law to fly them out anyway.

Your ethics adviser disagrees with you so you get rid of the position. [Lord Geidt disagreed with then PM Boris Johnson over Partygate and other matters].

You want David Cameron back in government but he isn’t an MP so you make him a Lord. You can’t stop protesters from protesting, so you make it illegal… Sophie, London

Rishi Sunak, Metro Page 1, Thursday: ‘The rule of law is fundamental to our democracy.’ Page 4, same edition: ‘I will not allow a foreign court to block these flights.’ Which is it, Rishi?Tim, East Hertfordshire

Even if you’re daft enough to think the Rwanda plan had merit, the Supreme Court’s decision means there’s little this government can do – apart from squander further millions on more brainfarts.

The country gains nothing from them crying into their hankies and complaining they’re the victims of made-up ‘enemies of the people’, fictitious ‘blobs’ and woke elites. Or an establishment we’re meant to believe they’re not actually part of.

I am no fan of David Cameron’s, nor would I ever vote Tory, but the elevation of the erstwhile prime minister to foreign secretary is a masterstroke. Nixon was blessed with Henry Kissinger. Dare I say it, Cameron is the new Kissinger. Tony Ojolola, Old Kent Road

Surely the government can’t be serious about ditching the European Convention on Human Rights in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling that its Rwanda deportation scheme is unlawful (Metro, Thu)?

Hopefully this would never get through the House of Commons and Lords. The unanimous Supreme Court judgment was unequivocal – Rwanda is not a safe country and recent behaviour there shows it is unlikely to be safe in the (near) future regardless of any formal treaties we might make with them. Ian, Chatham

Is time for Rishi Sunak to call a General Election?

The only good thing Rishi Sunak can now do is call a General Election. Peter Brown, Bradford

Regarding the Labour MPs who voted against their party and backed an SNP motion for a ceasefire in Gaza.

Is it not worrying that 56 MPs, who would aspire to be in leadership of this country, were unable to recognise the consequences of their wish for a total ceasefire in Gaza? J Longstaff, Buxted

‘I attended three London peace marches not one of them hateful’

Dazzer (MetroTalk, Wed) says the things he has seen at the pro-Palestine marches ‘would have seen the [police] batons coming out and people being dragged to a police cell’ had it been a far-right march.

I have taken part in three London marches. The most recent was of several hundred thousand and entirely peaceful.

Thousands of families were there, mothers and children marching for peace and a ceasefire in Gaza. There was a large Jewish bloc of at least a thousand people.

At no point did I see any aggression of any kind or hear any chants that could be offensive to anyone.

I would like to thank the police for doing such a great job of keeping us all safe.

Suella Braverman’s ‘hate march’ comments last week created conflict where there was none.Helen Elwes, Oxford

Many writers to this page have applauded Ms Braverman for speaking her mind and being unafraid to be ‘unwoke’.

I agree that speaking the truth is most important. However she didn’t speak the truth. I went on the march in London for a ceasefire in Gaza last Saturday and saw no evidence of hate.

There was an extraordinary mix of people of all ages and ethnicities including many Jewish people and Jewish organisations. If Suella sees hate everywhere, it is perhaps because it is emanating from her own heart. Jenny Ochera, West Norwood

‘Telling it how it is.’

When someone says a person ‘tells it how it is’ you know that what they are actually doing is expressing their own narrow, usually outdated and ill-informed, view, as if it were a universal truth. Andrew, Essex

Memorials to evil acts and symbols of love

Why does Ben (MetroTalk, Wed) think taking down slave trader statues ‘removes the opportunity of discussion’.

We talk about tyrants, murderers and all manner of despicable people all the time – did we need to build monuments to them in order to do that?

We need to get past this idea that these statues are somehow ‘part of our history’. Do we erect statues so we can learn from the sins and errors of our times? No – we erect statues to celebrate and pay tribute to people we see as heroes.

So it is now, so it always has been. It is completely wrong to put up statues of evil people and it is completely wrong to keep statues of evil people that are already here.

We took down memorials to Jimmy Savile – why should anyone else be any different? Rob Slater, Norfolk

A petition has been launched to remove padlocks placed by lovebirds on Bristol’s Pero’s Bridge, which is named after an 18th-century slave (Metro, Thu).

Resident Helen Tierney says the locks represent a ‘symbol of oppression’. Acknowledging the mistakes of the past is a necessary part of human development but to suggest that these padlocks are a symbol of oppression disregards the greatest human emotion of all – love – which they represent for the many who have left them there.

To remove them would be to suggest that hate trumps love and that is not a fight you want to start. Alexis, Bristol

It comes as no surprise that Royal Mail has been given a £5.6million fine for failing to meet the time requirement for first class delivery targets.

The last daily collection from my postbox is at 9.30am, so any first class letters posted after that will not be collected until the following morning and consequently not be delivered until the day after that, ie 48 hours after posting.

Royal Mail needs to return to having collections late afternoon/early evening. Martin J Phillips, Leeds

MORE : Politicians like me owe it to humanity to call for a ceasefire in Gaza on both sides

MORE : Didn’t take Lord Dave long to jet off after getting his new job

MORE : Rishi vows Rwanda flights will happen and unveils emergency plan

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.