I don't wish to appear callous but I don't think this is an issue (for the UK or other hosting State). If they have no right of abode then their situation is the same as all the other unfortunates caught up in this tragedy - the fact that one of their number has secured residence elsewhere is irrelevant. This issue becomes equal to the that of Sudanese refugees in general. Naturally the family member who has rights in another State has to decide whether to go or not (ie stay with their family).

The doctor has been brought out.

Seems it's A400s making the flights now. The first RAF aircraft in was a C130, though I believe European A400s had come and gone from the airfield before that. Perhaps some passengers still aren't happy with the A400.

To me & I accept not everyone may agree, but the vast majority of the `British` citizens shown on the TV news being evacuated from Sudan, may not in fact be British after all. Possibly, like many of those rather fit, well fed looking young chaps leaping off boats onto the South coast beaches, having just crossed the channel.

Same with the Tornado, Sentinel, I'd even go as far as to say Buccaneer. Still its Balance sheets what counts, not operational credibility.

FB

Which is why, I think, that the "British passports only" rule has (allegedly) been enforced.

If, as is alleged, the UK Government were advising UK citizens not to go to, or remain in, Sudan, then those caught out deserve limited sympathy.
Only if.

France, Germany and Turkey have used their A400Ms successfully as well. Like at Kabul before.

Easy to say. Many of those that went out there were visiting family to celebrate Eid al-Fitr. If there is space I see no reason why vulnerable family members should not be brought out as a humanitarian gesture, much as other countries bought out British passport holders along with their own nationals.

In some way UK passport holders are still better off than US citizens as the US only picked up embassy staff.

Anyone travelling abroad without reading FCO Travel Advice for their destination is being a fool to themselves. Even common tourist destinations sometimes have quirks worth knowing about, and some places are very dangerous. That has included Sudan for a long time.

There is absolutely no equivalence and i really cannot understand why you have sought to bring the two together. In the latter case, the "refugees" will immediately transit to the country where they have legal residence and it will be a quid pro quo gesture between similar European countries which often do such things. The first case is simply choosing a few Sudanese citizens out of millions, none of whom have no right of abode.

I think you will find they do not want the right of abode, they want to be removed from a war zone and from the conversations I have seen also want to transit to a third country. This can be achieved from Cyprus.

"Anyone travelling abroad without reading FCO Travel Advice for their destination is being a fool to themselves."

Trouble is its often complete CMA by someone in London and bears little resemblance to what are the actual issues on the ground. Personally I've never believed the FO would be any use at all in the various interesting places I've been. If you think you might have to get out quick either don't go or make sure you have a plan.

A lot of FCO advice has the same level of usefulness as motorway matrix displays,

It is precisely because people like you diregarded FCO advice that they are now having to be evacuated by the military at great expense and with some danger to the personnel involved.

What they want and what is possible may have absolutely no possibility/connection with reality. Please try to stick to reality. I have often read reports in papers of adolescents accused of serious offences saying that they "wanted to be first-division footballers " with no proof / link to realisation beyond a lawyer's unsupported words.

What a strange and prejudiced view of a BBC run by Tories and constantly leaning over backwards, on the likes of Question Time, to be as lenient and forgiving as possible to this bunch of incompetent self serving bar stewards.

I am not talking about young adolescents but elderly relatives of British passport holders who wanted to get to relatives in Egypt, A perilous overland journey that could be obviated by a plane ride. If there is space, no-one is being disadvantaged. It is the humanitarian thing to do.

"It is precisely because people like you disregard FCO advice that they are now having to be evacuated by the military at great expense and with some danger to the personnel involved."

The FCO have half the world as a dangerous place - that may be true in general - but people still have to go to these places. If I go I don't expect the UK Govt to come and save me. I have had enough experience of the FO and embassy staff overseas to know they'll be gone and anyone else will be left.

With your humanitarian instincts pouring forth, combined with a resolute support of officialdom "always knowing best "...clearly, you could have risen to the highest level in the FCO...albeit you are not alone on here in this respect.

This report offers a slightly different, and probably far more realistic, account of the dangers faced by those attempting to leave....
NHS medics and UK nationals faced risky route to Sudan evacuation point | Sudan | The Guardian