FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Rwanda Bill Passed
Rwanda Bill Passed
Jump to: Newest in thread
The Rwanda Bill will now become Law.
So now we will have demonstrations at airports. Alleged brutality with migrants in handcuffs. Last minute legal challenges and pilots refusing to take off. Is this life in 2024. What's going on here guys. It's all over the news |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
What's going on is the desperate behaviour of a failing zombie government that is prepared to do anything to appeal to people lacking empathy and much intelligence, to see beyond their angry desperation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
How long before those in power decide there is enough apathy within the population to start sending benefit claimants to Rwanda as it "cheaper".
I find it beyond belief that the population this country just rolls over and takes everything thrown at it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Rwanda Bill will now become Law.
So now we will have demonstrations at airports. Alleged brutality with migrants in handcuffs. Last minute legal challenges and pilots refusing to take off. Is this life in 2024. What's going on here guys. It's all over the news"
Bad news for the Reform party. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *ornLordMan 2 weeks ago
Wiltshire and London |
"Stop the Boats & stop the so called British charities helping & encouraging in Calais. "
Sunak should have Stop the Boats tattooed across his stupid grinning mug. It's never going to stop the boats and he knows it.
It's a nasty piece of performative evil designed to throw red meat to morons. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Not sure if it's the right scheme, but SOMETHING needed doing. It's just plain gormless watching our national borders being violated on a daily basis - often by criminals rather than bona fide asylum seekers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Stop the Boats & stop the so called British charities helping & encouraging in Calais.
Sunak should have Stop the Boats tattooed across his stupid grinning mug. It's never going to stop the boats and he knows it.
It's a nasty piece of performative evil designed to throw red meat to morons."
In fairness to Sunak, it's an effective tactic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 2 weeks ago
Brighton |
Sunak needs to have a word with Trump. He knows a guy who can build walls (well part of a wall, not the whole wall obviously, with gaps in it too, but a wall nonetheless) and they could have a go at building a wall along the south coast! For a decent price too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sunak needs to have a word with Trump. He knows a guy who can build walls (well part of a wall, not the whole wall obviously, with gaps in it too, but a wall nonetheless) and they could have a go at building a wall along the south coast! For a decent price too."
The Scots managed it with Hadrian's Wall |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sunak needs to have a word with Trump. He knows a guy who can build walls (well part of a wall, not the whole wall obviously, with gaps in it too, but a wall nonetheless) and they could have a go at building a wall along the south coast! For a decent price too.
The Scots managed it with Hadrian's Wall"
The Romans built that wall. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Ok we get a lot of "stop the boats" and "stop foreign aid" well under the 1951 Geneva convention we have to take in refugees from war torn countries along with any other European countries that signed it.
If we broke that treaty the pound would crash and other countries under the Geneva convention would not be able to trade with us.
Oh and a refugee has no obligation to seek asylum in the first safe country (common myth)
Nothing to do with the EU, ECHR or lefty labour.
Please feel free to fact check |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 2 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Sunak needs to have a word with Trump. He knows a guy who can build walls (well part of a wall, not the whole wall obviously, with gaps in it too, but a wall nonetheless) and they could have a go at building a wall along the south coast! For a decent price too.
The Scots managed it with Hadrian's Wall
The Romans built that wall. "
To keep the Scots (well Picts) out. Didn’t work very well. Bit like Trump’s wall! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What's going on is the desperate behaviour of a failing zombie government that is prepared to do anything to appeal to people lacking empathy and much intelligence, to see beyond their angry desperation."
What is Labour's answer (as they are more than likely to be the next government)? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolutionCouple 2 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke. |
"What's going on is the desperate behaviour of a failing zombie government that is prepared to do anything to appeal to people lacking empathy and much intelligence, to see beyond their angry desperation.
What is Labour's answer (as they are more than likely to be the next government)?"
Labour has said it will go after the Gangs. He fails to say how. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Rwanda Bill will now become Law.
So now we will have demonstrations at airports. Alleged brutality with migrants in handcuffs. Last minute legal challenges and pilots refusing to take off. Is this life in 2024. What's going on here guys. It's all over the news"
The government are planning to use the RAF for flights |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What's going on is the desperate behaviour of a failing zombie government that is prepared to do anything to appeal to people lacking empathy and much intelligence, to see beyond their angry desperation.
What is Labour's answer (as they are more than likely to be the next government)?
Labour has said it will go after the Gangs. He fails to say how. "
An empty mantra just like stop the boats.
Personally I'd pretty much give up processing current claims; even if the application is refused the applicant will just keep appealing and they won't be repatriated anyway.
I'd make it that all applications MUST apply for asylum at a British embassy, commission or consulate and wait the results. If approved we would provide safe passage to the UK. If the application is refused one right of appeal. If anyone crosses by the channel or enters illegally gets forcibly removed.
Provide a fair, safe and workable solution. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What's going on is the desperate behaviour of a failing zombie government that is prepared to do anything to appeal to people lacking empathy and much intelligence, to see beyond their angry desperation.
What is Labour's answer (as they are more than likely to be the next government)?"
Labour don't have an answer. Look at the tragic incident today with 5 deaths occurring as a small boat while being boarded on the French coast. The French Navy proceeded to esc0rt the boat to UK waters. FFS. Rwanda is a bonkers scheme but with neighbours like that, what options are there? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What's going on is the desperate behaviour of a failing zombie government that is prepared to do anything to appeal to people lacking empathy and much intelligence, to see beyond their angry desperation.
What is Labour's answer (as they are more than likely to be the next government)?
Labour don't have an answer. Look at the tragic incident today with 5 deaths occurring as a small boat while being boarded on the French coast. The French Navy proceeded to esc0rt the boat to UK waters. FFS. Rwanda is a bonkers scheme but with neighbours like that, what options are there?"
That's how I read it too but come to the conclusion I must have misunderstood or the reporter got it wrong. Why would they allow the dingy to continue given they are supposed to stop them and especially given the tragic circumstances. No idea of Labour's answer. We will soon find out I guess after the GE. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Again under the Geneva convention you can claim asylum in a country of your choice.
The authorities can't stop them, they aren't French citizens and haven't committed a crime.
All they can do is do their best to make sure they get there safe.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 2 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"What's going on is the desperate behaviour of a failing zombie government that is prepared to do anything to appeal to people lacking empathy and much intelligence, to see beyond their angry desperation.
What is Labour's answer (as they are more than likely to be the next government)?
Labour has said it will go after the Gangs. He fails to say how. "
Yep, the devil is in the detail. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What I wonder is why there are no safe routes, if the routes were safe then there would be no deaths.
People would be identified.
Have paperwork organised.
It would be lawful."
The moment they open safe routes, there would be way too many people applying and the truth is European countries do not want to take that many refugees. In an ideal world, countries would get together to modify the refugee conventions to allow each country to set their own limits on how many refugees they can take in one year and THEN open the safe routes with a clear prioritisation framework.
Unfortunately, politicians do not want to fix the root cause because it is difficult. Instead, every country is trying to come up with innovative ways to get rid of asylum seekers while still sticking to age old refugee conventions which are clearly over their expiry dates.
If the Rwanda scheme does act as a deterrent, every other European country is going to follow the same plan. We just have to wait and see if it does work well as a deterrent. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Again under the Geneva convention you can claim asylum in a country of your choice.
The authorities can't stop them, they aren't French citizens and haven't committed a crime.
All they can do is do their best to make sure they get there safe.
"
The world has changed. Conventions can be changed. Anyone can come up with problems; we need solutions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What I wonder is why there are no safe routes, if the routes were safe then there would be no deaths.
People would be identified.
Have paperwork organised.
It would be lawful.
The moment they open safe routes, there would be way too many people applying and the truth is European countries do not want to take that many refugees. In an ideal world, countries would get together to modify the refugee conventions to allow each country to set their own limits on how many refugees they can take in one year and THEN open the safe routes with a clear prioritisation framework.
Unfortunately, politicians do not want to fix the root cause because it is difficult. Instead, every country is trying to come up with innovative ways to get rid of asylum seekers while still sticking to age old refugee conventions which are clearly over their expiry dates.
If the Rwanda scheme does act as a deterrent, every other European country is going to follow the same plan. We just have to wait and see if it does work well as a deterrent."
The root cause of this I believe is economics, as poorer countries cannot sustain their populations, people need to go where they can to survive.
So instead of our government and others r4ping these poor countries making them poor, I would think it beneficial to support these countries with fair deals that support there population.
But if climate change comes to be a thing then no matter what people are coming. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What I wonder is why there are no safe routes, if the routes were safe then there would be no deaths.
People would be identified.
Have paperwork organised.
It would be lawful.
The moment they open safe routes, there would be way too many people applying and the truth is European countries do not want to take that many refugees. In an ideal world, countries would get together to modify the refugee conventions to allow each country to set their own limits on how many refugees they can take in one year and THEN open the safe routes with a clear prioritisation framework.
Unfortunately, politicians do not want to fix the root cause because it is difficult. Instead, every country is trying to come up with innovative ways to get rid of asylum seekers while still sticking to age old refugee conventions which are clearly over their expiry dates.
If the Rwanda scheme does act as a deterrent, every other European country is going to follow the same plan. We just have to wait and see if it does work well as a deterrent.
The root cause of this I believe is economics, as poorer countries cannot sustain their populations, people need to go where they can to survive.
So instead of our government and others r4ping these poor countries making them poor, I would think it beneficial to support these countries with fair deals that support there population.
But if climate change comes to be a thing then no matter what people are coming."
It's not the responsibility for every rich country to take care of poor countries. And even then, there is lot of foreign aid going to these countries which just end up in the pockets of fee people. The political situations in these countries are so fucked up. That's something the west can't fix without being blamed for interfering with other countries politics. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
29,437 people arrived on small boats last year, up to 300 a year can be sent to Rwanda. That means that f I am a refugee I have a 99% chance of staying in the UK.
I’d take those odds. Worst deterrent ever. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"29,437 people arrived on small boats last year, up to 300 a year can be sent to Rwanda. That means that f I am a refugee I have a 99% chance of staying in the UK.
I’d take those odds. Worst deterrent ever."
Where is the number 300 coming from? The BBC article says the capacity for detention has been increased to 2000
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"29,437 people arrived on small boats last year, up to 300 a year can be sent to Rwanda. That means that f I am a refugee I have a 99% chance of staying in the UK.
I’d take those odds. Worst deterrent ever."
Agreed, but what's the alternative? Do nothing? (like we did for the past decade). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"29,437 people arrived on small boats last year, up to 300 a year can be sent to Rwanda. That means that f I am a refugee I have a 99% chance of staying in the UK.
I’d take those odds. Worst deterrent ever.
Agreed, but what's the alternative? Do nothing? (like we did for the past decade)."
Spunking 100s or millions trafficking humans to Rwanda has but one purpose and it has absolutely fuck all to do with deterring people from attempting a channel crossing.
Of course the government doesn't want to deter people from crossing. It's great for them.
If they did want to do something, they could spend much less money, employ some more people to process the asylum claims more quickly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"29,437 people arrived on small boats last year, up to 300 a year can be sent to Rwanda. That means that f I am a refugee I have a 99% chance of staying in the UK.
I’d take those odds. Worst deterrent ever.
Where is the number 300 coming from? The BBC article says the capacity for detention has been increased to 2000
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866"
Sorry, I was mistaken. The capacity of the proposed facility in Rwanda is actually 200 people annually, not 300. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Of course the government doesn't want to deter people from crossing. It's great for them.
"
^^ Ridiculous comment.
That aside; processing claims doesn't resolve the fact that once the asylum seekers are on these shores they won't (or very very few) be allowed to stay; it's a paper exercise that doesn't really solve anything per se.
Those seeking asylum have effectively been conflated with economic migrants. The loop whole is exploited by the people smugglers and the conventions in place are not really able to address that.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"29,437 people arrived on small boats last year, up to 300 a year can be sent to Rwanda. That means that f I am a refugee I have a 99% chance of staying in the UK.
I’d take those odds. Worst deterrent ever.
Agreed, but what's the alternative? Do nothing? (like we did for the past decade)."
Not spunk £1.8 million a person on a scheme that is purely political posturing.
Invest that money in an asylum processing centre in France perhaps? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"29,437 people arrived on small boats last year, up to 300 a year can be sent to Rwanda. That means that f I am a refugee I have a 99% chance of staying in the UK.
I’d take those odds. Worst deterrent ever.
Where is the number 300 coming from? The BBC article says the capacity for detention has been increased to 2000
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866
Á qSorry, I was mistaken. The capacity of the proposed facility in Rwanda is actually 200 people annually, not 300."
Where did you get the number from? Can you share the source? The BBC article has a section discussing number of people who can be sent to Rwanda and it doesn't mention anything about the smaller capacity in Rwanda. We have over 200 case workers ready to work on the plan and plans for multiple flights. It doesn't make sense if Rwanda can take only 200. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"29,437 people arrived on small boats last year, up to 300 a year can be sent to Rwanda. That means that f I am a refugee I have a 99% chance of staying in the UK.
I’d take those odds. Worst deterrent ever.
Agreed, but what's the alternative? Do nothing? (like we did for the past decade).
Not spunk £1.8 million a person on a scheme that is purely political posturing.
Invest that money in an asylum processing centre in France perhaps?"
At the stated Rwanda capacity of 300 a year, and the 50000 reported by BBC last night that are to leave.
It will take 166 years based on these numbers to deport all these people, and at £1.8M a head cost £90BN |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"29,437 people arrived on small boats last year, up to 300 a year can be sent to Rwanda. That means that f I am a refugee I have a 99% chance of staying in the UK.
I’d take those odds. Worst deterrent ever.
Agreed, but what's the alternative? Do nothing? (like we did for the past decade).
Not spunk £1.8 million a person on a scheme that is purely political posturing.
Invest that money in an asylum processing centre in France perhaps?"
Agree on costs, but rejected asylum claimants would just resort to the criminal gangs they use now. There has to be a method of physically stopping illegal crossings. It's a matter of how. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"29,437 people arrived on small boats last year, up to 300 a year can be sent to Rwanda. That means that f I am a refugee I have a 99% chance of staying in the UK.
I’d take those odds. Worst deterrent ever.
Where is the number 300 coming from? The BBC article says the capacity for detention has been increased to 2000
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866
Á qSorry, I was mistaken. The capacity of the proposed facility in Rwanda is actually 200 people annually, not 300.
Where did you get the number from? Can you share the source? The BBC article has a section discussing number of people who can be sent to Rwanda and it doesn't mention anything about the smaller capacity in Rwanda. We have over 200 case workers ready to work on the plan and plans for multiple flights. It doesn't make sense if Rwanda can take only 200."
It does not make any sense
It will be impossible for the scheme to succeed and cost too much
As Andrew Neal told Sunak, it would be cheaper to send them all to boarding school.
Home office website today shows 215,500 asylum claims. 200 a year to Rwanda will take 431 years |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ok we get a lot of "stop the boats" and "stop foreign aid" well under the 1951 Geneva convention we have to take in refugees from war torn countries along with any other European countries that signed it.
If we broke that treaty the pound would crash and other countries under the Geneva convention would not be able to trade with us.
Oh and a refugee has no obligation to seek asylum in the first safe country (common myth)
Nothing to do with the EU, ECHR or lefty labour.
Please feel free to fact check"
Since you've asked ...
The Geneva Conventions were signed in 1949. They deal with the treatment of combatants and civilians, in and around war zones. They have nothing to do with migrants or refugees.
The 1951 Convention on the Rights of Refugees on the other hand does cover refugees, but it doesn't cover war. In fact it was amended in 1969 specifically to remove all references to war.
The 1951 Convention obliges us to grant asylum to those with a "justified fear of persecution". It does not oblige us to accept people running from war, or any other disaster. It was originally written specifically to help Jews running from Nazi Germany, and then modified to cover anyone that was escaping an oppressive regime.
"Again under the Geneva convention you can claim asylum in a country of your choice."
Not true. Under the 1951 Convention an asylum seeker can claim if they find themselves in any signatory country. They cannot choose a country to grant them asylum, other than by getting to that country and claiming there.
If you've managed to get that much wrong in just 2 posts, you might want to consider how many other things you believe that are not true. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"29,437 people arrived on small boats last year, up to 300 a year can be sent to Rwanda. That means that f I am a refugee I have a 99% chance of staying in the UK.
I’d take those odds. Worst deterrent ever.
Where is the number 300 coming from? The BBC article says the capacity for detention has been increased to 2000
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866
Á qSorry, I was mistaken. The capacity of the proposed facility in Rwanda is actually 200 people annually, not 300.
Where did you get the number from? Can you share the source? The BBC article has a section discussing number of people who can be sent to Rwanda and it doesn't mention anything about the smaller capacity in Rwanda. We have over 200 case workers ready to work on the plan and plans for multiple flights. It doesn't make sense if Rwanda can take only 200.
It does not make any sense
It will be impossible for the scheme to succeed and cost too much
As Andrew Neal told Sunak, it would be cheaper to send them all to boarding school.
Home office website today shows 215,500 asylum claims. 200 a year to Rwanda will take 431 years "
Can you share the source that claims Rwanda can take only 200 a year? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"29,437 people arrived on small boats last year, up to 300 a year can be sent to Rwanda. That means that f I am a refugee I have a 99% chance of staying in the UK.
I’d take those odds. Worst deterrent ever.
Where is the number 300 coming from? The BBC article says the capacity for detention has been increased to 2000
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866
Á qSorry, I was mistaken. The capacity of the proposed facility in Rwanda is actually 200 people annually, not 300.
Where did you get the number from? Can you share the source? The BBC article has a section discussing number of people who can be sent to Rwanda and it doesn't mention anything about the smaller capacity in Rwanda. We have over 200 case workers ready to work on the plan and plans for multiple flights. It doesn't make sense if Rwanda can take only 200.
It does not make any sense
It will be impossible for the scheme to succeed and cost too much
As Andrew Neal told Sunak, it would be cheaper to send them all to boarding school.
Home office website today shows 215,500 asylum claims. 200 a year to Rwanda will take 431 years
Can you share the source that claims Rwanda can take only 200 a year?"
The scheme will allow the government to send asylum seekers "entering the UK illegally" to Rwanda. Most of those affected will be people arriving in small boats. The capacity of the proposed facility in Rwanda is 200 people annually, representing just 0.7% of 2023 small boat arrivals.1 day ago Sky yesterday. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"29,437 people arrived on small boats last year, up to 300 a year can be sent to Rwanda. That means that f I am a refugee I have a 99% chance of staying in the UK.
I’d take those odds. Worst deterrent ever.
Where is the number 300 coming from? The BBC article says the capacity for detention has been increased to 2000
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866
Á qSorry, I was mistaken. The capacity of the proposed facility in Rwanda is actually 200 people annually, not 300.
Where did you get the number from? Can you share the source? The BBC article has a section discussing number of people who can be sent to Rwanda and it doesn't mention anything about the smaller capacity in Rwanda. We have over 200 case workers ready to work on the plan and plans for multiple flights. It doesn't make sense if Rwanda can take only 200.
It does not make any sense
It will be impossible for the scheme to succeed and cost too much
As Andrew Neal told Sunak, it would be cheaper to send them all to boarding school.
Home office website today shows 215,500 asylum claims. 200 a year to Rwanda will take 431 years
Can you share the source that claims Rwanda can take only 200 a year?"
Wiki
The agreement with the Rwandan government did not specify how many migrants would have been accepted under the scheme but it was subsequently reported that the initial maximum would have been 200.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"29,437 people arrived on small boats last year, up to 300 a year can be sent to Rwanda. That means that f I am a refugee I have a 99% chance of staying in the UK.
I’d take those odds. Worst deterrent ever.
Where is the number 300 coming from? The BBC article says the capacity for detention has been increased to 2000
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866
Á qSorry, I was mistaken. The capacity of the proposed facility in Rwanda is actually 200 people annually, not 300.
Where did you get the number from? Can you share the source? The BBC article has a section discussing number of people who can be sent to Rwanda and it doesn't mention anything about the smaller capacity in Rwanda. We have over 200 case workers ready to work on the plan and plans for multiple flights. It doesn't make sense if Rwanda can take only 200.
It does not make any sense
It will be impossible for the scheme to succeed and cost too much
As Andrew Neal told Sunak, it would be cheaper to send them all to boarding school.
Home office website today shows 215,500 asylum claims. 200 a year to Rwanda will take 431 years
Can you share the source that claims Rwanda can take only 200 a year?"
BBC. 8 dec 2023
‘The Home Office has said Rwanda has an initial capacity to take 200 people a year, but there are plans to increase that number when the scheme begins’
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The latest deaths appear to have been caused by 'gatecrashers' storming onto an already overfull dinghy using force and shortly after departure it partially capsized. There is talk that there is no crime. Some had paid and had their seat booked and those who stormed the boat had presumably not paid and jumped on board with the other boat peope |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"29,437 people arrived on small boats last year, up to 300 a year can be sent to Rwanda. That means that f I am a refugee I have a 99% chance of staying in the UK.
I’d take those odds. Worst deterrent ever.
Where is the number 300 coming from? The BBC article says the capacity for detention has been increased to 2000
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866
Á qSorry, I was mistaken. The capacity of the proposed facility in Rwanda is actually 200 people annually, not 300.
Where did you get the number from? Can you share the source? The BBC article has a section discussing number of people who can be sent to Rwanda and it doesn't mention anything about the smaller capacity in Rwanda. We have over 200 case workers ready to work on the plan and plans for multiple flights. It doesn't make sense if Rwanda can take only 200."
It is from a Sky News article published yesterday. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"29,437 people arrived on small boats last year, up to 300 a year can be sent to Rwanda. That means that f I am a refugee I have a 99% chance of staying in the UK.
I’d take those odds. Worst deterrent ever.
Where is the number 300 coming from? The BBC article says the capacity for detention has been increased to 2000
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866
Á qSorry, I was mistaken. The capacity of the proposed facility in Rwanda is actually 200 people annually, not 300.
Where did you get the number from? Can you share the source? The BBC article has a section discussing number of people who can be sent to Rwanda and it doesn't mention anything about the smaller capacity in Rwanda. We have over 200 case workers ready to work on the plan and plans for multiple flights. It doesn't make sense if Rwanda can take only 200.
It does not make any sense
It will be impossible for the scheme to succeed and cost too much
As Andrew Neal told Sunak, it would be cheaper to send them all to boarding school.
Home office website today shows 215,500 asylum claims. 200 a year to Rwanda will take 431 years
Can you share the source that claims Rwanda can take only 200 a year?
BBC. 8 dec 2023
‘The Home Office has said Rwanda has an initial capacity to take 200 people a year, but there are plans to increase that number when the scheme begins’
"
Yes, the scheme has begun now and they will increase capacity. That's the way it normally works. Why would anyone build capacity for 1000s if the plan hasn't even kicked off yet. Now that it looks like people are going to be sent, they will increase capacity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"29,437 people arrived on small boats last year, up to 300 a year can be sent to Rwanda. That means that f I am a refugee I have a 99% chance of staying in the UK.
I’d take those odds. Worst deterrent ever.
Where is the number 300 coming from? The BBC article says the capacity for detention has been increased to 2000
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866
Á qSorry, I was mistaken. The capacity of the proposed facility in Rwanda is actually 200 people annually, not 300.
Where did you get the number from? Can you share the source? The BBC article has a section discussing number of people who can be sent to Rwanda and it doesn't mention anything about the smaller capacity in Rwanda. We have over 200 case workers ready to work on the plan and plans for multiple flights. It doesn't make sense if Rwanda can take only 200.
It is from a Sky News article published yesterday."
It's the initial facility. It is not that hard for them to increase the capacity once the plan is implemented. Rwanda has already taken 1000s of refugees from other countries |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"29,437 people arrived on small boats last year, up to 300 a year can be sent to Rwanda. That means that f I am a refugee I have a 99% chance of staying in the UK.
I’d take those odds. Worst deterrent ever.
Where is the number 300 coming from? The BBC article says the capacity for detention has been increased to 2000
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866
Á qSorry, I was mistaken. The capacity of the proposed facility in Rwanda is actually 200 people annually, not 300.
Where did you get the number from? Can you share the source? The BBC article has a section discussing number of people who can be sent to Rwanda and it doesn't mention anything about the smaller capacity in Rwanda. We have over 200 case workers ready to work on the plan and plans for multiple flights. It doesn't make sense if Rwanda can take only 200.
It does not make any sense
It will be impossible for the scheme to succeed and cost too much
As Andrew Neal told Sunak, it would be cheaper to send them all to boarding school.
Home office website today shows 215,500 asylum claims. 200 a year to Rwanda will take 431 years
Can you share the source that claims Rwanda can take only 200 a year?
BBC. 8 dec 2023
‘The Home Office has said Rwanda has an initial capacity to take 200 people a year, but there are plans to increase that number when the scheme begins’
Yes, the scheme has begun now and they will increase capacity. That's the way it normally works. Why would anyone build capacity for 1000s if the plan hasn't even kicked off yet. Now that it looks like people are going to be sent, they will increase capacity."
Only another 29,237 to reach the number of people who arrived in small boats last year, when do you think they will reach that amount of places in Rwanda? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"29,437 people arrived on small boats last year, up to 300 a year can be sent to Rwanda. That means that f I am a refugee I have a 99% chance of staying in the UK.
I’d take those odds. Worst deterrent ever.
Where is the number 300 coming from? The BBC article says the capacity for detention has been increased to 2000
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866
Á qSorry, I was mistaken. The capacity of the proposed facility in Rwanda is actually 200 people annually, not 300.
Where did you get the number from? Can you share the source? The BBC article has a section discussing number of people who can be sent to Rwanda and it doesn't mention anything about the smaller capacity in Rwanda. We have over 200 case workers ready to work on the plan and plans for multiple flights. It doesn't make sense if Rwanda can take only 200.
It does not make any sense
It will be impossible for the scheme to succeed and cost too much
As Andrew Neal told Sunak, it would be cheaper to send them all to boarding school.
Home office website today shows 215,500 asylum claims. 200 a year to Rwanda will take 431 years
Can you share the source that claims Rwanda can take only 200 a year?
BBC. 8 dec 2023
‘The Home Office has said Rwanda has an initial capacity to take 200 people a year, but there are plans to increase that number when the scheme begins’
Yes, the scheme has begun now and they will increase capacity. That's the way it normally works. Why would anyone build capacity for 1000s if the plan hasn't even kicked off yet. Now that it looks like people are going to be sent, they will increase capacity.
Only another 29,237 to reach the number of people who arrived in small boats last year, when do you think they will reach that amount of places in Rwanda?"
I think this question has been answered before. If you even send 2000 people this year, it will deter people from crossing in the future. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Of course the government doesn't want to deter people from crossing. It's great for them.
^^ Ridiculous comment.
"
Why is this ridiculous? The anti-immigrant rhetoric is an essential part of drumming up support for right wing political parties.
"
That aside; processing claims doesn't resolve the fact that once the asylum seekers are on these shores they won't (or very very few) be allowed to stay; it's a paper exercise that doesn't really solve anything per se.
"
I mean, that's exactly what it would do.
A. Reduce costs of housing people waiting for their claims to be processed.
B. Allows genuine asylum claims to be processed quickly, getting people to work and contributing to society.
C. Those who aren't successful in their claims can be dealt with appropriately.
"
Those seeking asylum have effectively been conflated with economic migrants. The loop whole is exploited by the people smugglers and the conventions in place are not really able to address that.
"
So process them more quickly. It's the obvious answer. But of course the government is much more interesting in getting voter energised for the up coming election. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Of course the government doesn't want to deter people from crossing. It's great for them.
^^ Ridiculous comment.
Why is this ridiculous? The anti-immigrant rhetoric is an essential part of drumming up support for right wing political parties.
That aside; processing claims doesn't resolve the fact that once the asylum seekers are on these shores they won't (or very very few) be allowed to stay; it's a paper exercise that doesn't really solve anything per se.
I mean, that's exactly what it would do.
A. Reduce costs of housing people waiting for their claims to be processed.
B. Allows genuine asylum claims to be processed quickly, getting people to work and contributing to society.
C. Those who aren't successful in their claims can be dealt with appropriately.
Those seeking asylum have effectively been conflated with economic migrants. The loop whole is exploited by the people smugglers and the conventions in place are not really able to address that.
So process them more quickly. It's the obvious answer. But of course the government is much more interesting in getting voter energised for the up coming election."
The "just process them quickly" arguments miss two important problems
- It is not that easy to process claims in the first place. How do you get evidence that someone is gay if he claims that he ran away because his country has death penalty for gays? How do you validate the claim of someone coming from a war zone when he has thrown away his documents?
- Even if we process and find that they aren't eligible for asylum, what do you do with them if their supposed home country doesn't take them in? The problem is that the moment they come inside the border and claim asylum, we can effectively do nothing to send them back to their home country. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"29,437 people arrived on small boats last year, up to 300 a year can be sent to Rwanda. That means that f I am a refugee I have a 99% chance of staying in the UK.
I’d take those odds. Worst deterrent ever.
Where is the number 300 coming from? The BBC article says the capacity for detention has been increased to 2000
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866
Á qSorry, I was mistaken. The capacity of the proposed facility in Rwanda is actually 200 people annually, not 300.
Where did you get the number from? Can you share the source? The BBC article has a section discussing number of people who can be sent to Rwanda and it doesn't mention anything about the smaller capacity in Rwanda. We have over 200 case workers ready to work on the plan and plans for multiple flights. It doesn't make sense if Rwanda can take only 200.
It does not make any sense
It will be impossible for the scheme to succeed and cost too much
As Andrew Neal told Sunak, it would be cheaper to send them all to boarding school.
Home office website today shows 215,500 asylum claims. 200 a year to Rwanda will take 431 years
Can you share the source that claims Rwanda can take only 200 a year?
BBC. 8 dec 2023
‘The Home Office has said Rwanda has an initial capacity to take 200 people a year, but there are plans to increase that number when the scheme begins’
Yes, the scheme has begun now and they will increase capacity. That's the way it normally works. Why would anyone build capacity for 1000s if the plan hasn't even kicked off yet. Now that it looks like people are going to be sent, they will increase capacity.
Only another 29,237 to reach the number of people who arrived in small boats last year, when do you think they will reach that amount of places in Rwanda?
I think this question has been answered before. If you even send 2000 people this year, it will deter people from crossing in the future. "
If we send 2000 then that would still give me, a refugee, a 93-94% chance of staying in the UK.
I’ll take those odds. Worst. Deterrent. Ever. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Of course the government doesn't want to deter people from crossing. It's great for them.
^^ Ridiculous comment.
Why is this ridiculous? The anti-immigrant rhetoric is an essential part of drumming up support for right wing political parties.
That aside; processing claims doesn't resolve the fact that once the asylum seekers are on these shores they won't (or very very few) be allowed to stay; it's a paper exercise that doesn't really solve anything per se.
I mean, that's exactly what it would do.
A. Reduce costs of housing people waiting for their claims to be processed.
B. Allows genuine asylum claims to be processed quickly, getting people to work and contributing to society.
C. Those who aren't successful in their claims can be dealt with appropriately.
Those seeking asylum have effectively been conflated with economic migrants. The loop whole is exploited by the people smugglers and the conventions in place are not really able to address that.
So process them more quickly. It's the obvious answer. But of course the government is much more interesting in getting voter energised for the up coming election.
The "just process them quickly" arguments miss two important problems
- It is not that easy to process claims in the first place. How do you get evidence that someone is gay if he claims that he ran away because his country has death penalty for gays? How do you validate the claim of someone coming from a war zone when he has thrown away his documents?
- Even if we process and find that they aren't eligible for asylum, what do you do with them if their supposed home country doesn't take them in? The problem is that the moment they come inside the border and claim asylum, we can effectively do nothing to send them back to their home country."
These fringe cases don't have any bearing on the premise that if we process claims more quickly and efficiently, we'd be in a much better place.
No one is saying quicker = easier.
The issues you mentioned exist in the cases:
Quick efficient processing, lower cost to tax payers.
Slow costly processing, people making lots of money housing applicants for a long time, Tories blaming immigrants for everything.
Spunking 100s millions trafficking a small number of applicants to Rwanda to encourage xenophobes to vote for the Tories. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"29,437 people arrived on small boats last year, up to 300 a year can be sent to Rwanda. That means that f I am a refugee I have a 99% chance of staying in the UK.
I’d take those odds. Worst deterrent ever.
Where is the number 300 coming from? The BBC article says the capacity for detention has been increased to 2000
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866
Á qSorry, I was mistaken. The capacity of the proposed facility in Rwanda is actually 200 people annually, not 300.
Where did you get the number from? Can you share the source? The BBC article has a section discussing number of people who can be sent to Rwanda and it doesn't mention anything about the smaller capacity in Rwanda. We have over 200 case workers ready to work on the plan and plans for multiple flights. It doesn't make sense if Rwanda can take only 200.
It does not make any sense
It will be impossible for the scheme to succeed and cost too much
As Andrew Neal told Sunak, it would be cheaper to send them all to boarding school.
Home office website today shows 215,500 asylum claims. 200 a year to Rwanda will take 431 years
Can you share the source that claims Rwanda can take only 200 a year?
BBC. 8 dec 2023
‘The Home Office has said Rwanda has an initial capacity to take 200 people a year, but there are plans to increase that number when the scheme begins’
Yes, the scheme has begun now and they will increase capacity. That's the way it normally works. Why would anyone build capacity for 1000s if the plan hasn't even kicked off yet. Now that it looks like people are going to be sent, they will increase capacity.
Only another 29,237 to reach the number of people who arrived in small boats last year, when do you think they will reach that amount of places in Rwanda?
I think this question has been answered before. If you even send 2000 people this year, it will deter people from crossing in the future.
If we send 2000 then that would still give me, a refugee, a 93-94% chance of staying in the UK.
I’ll take those odds. Worst. Deterrent. Ever."
2000 this year. They could increase capacity next year. But in practice, if you just send 2000 people, take videos and advertise that amongst asylum seekers, it would be a good deterrent. Denmark uses these advertisements massively to deter immigrants. They have some strict laws around handling asylum seekers - like using asylum seekers' jewels to pay for housing them and also repatriating them the moment their home country is even moderately safe. Of course they didn't do the above to everyone who came into the country. But they did it to a few people, took videos and advertised it in places from which asylum seekers usually come from and asked them not to go to Denmark. It has worked well because Denmark gets very few asylum requests compared to rest of the European countries. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Of course the government doesn't want to deter people from crossing. It's great for them.
^^ Ridiculous comment.
Why is this ridiculous? The anti-immigrant rhetoric is an essential part of drumming up support for right wing political parties.
That aside; processing claims doesn't resolve the fact that once the asylum seekers are on these shores they won't (or very very few) be allowed to stay; it's a paper exercise that doesn't really solve anything per se.
I mean, that's exactly what it would do.
A. Reduce costs of housing people waiting for their claims to be processed.
B. Allows genuine asylum claims to be processed quickly, getting people to work and contributing to society.
C. Those who aren't successful in their claims can be dealt with appropriately.
Those seeking asylum have effectively been conflated with economic migrants. The loop whole is exploited by the people smugglers and the conventions in place are not really able to address that.
So process them more quickly. It's the obvious answer. But of course the government is much more interesting in getting voter energised for the up coming election.
The "just process them quickly" arguments miss two important problems
- It is not that easy to process claims in the first place. How do you get evidence that someone is gay if he claims that he ran away because his country has death penalty for gays? How do you validate the claim of someone coming from a war zone when he has thrown away his documents?
- Even if we process and find that they aren't eligible for asylum, what do you do with them if their supposed home country doesn't take them in? The problem is that the moment they come inside the border and claim asylum, we can effectively do nothing to send them back to their home country.
These fringe cases don't have any bearing on the premise that if we process claims more quickly and efficiently, we'd be in a much better place.
No one is saying quicker = easier.
The issues you mentioned exist in the cases:
Quick efficient processing, lower cost to tax payers.
Slow costly processing, people making lots of money housing applicants for a long time, Tories blaming immigrants for everything.
Spunking 100s millions trafficking a small number of applicants to Rwanda to encourage xenophobes to vote for the Tories."
What makes you think that the cases I mentioned are fringe? Asylum seekers throwing away their passports is fairly common. Most people smugglers advice them to do so.
You say that "No one is saying quicker = easier". And then you went on to say "Quick efficient processing, lower cost to tax payers."
You haven't said how?
And you still haven't answered what we are supposed to do with people whose asylum claims have failed because their countries aren't willing to take them back. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I was under the impression we were actually paying money - a lot of money annually to the french to help stop the boats leaving their shores but on the news channels yesterday they were all showing the french police and coast guard actively helping the boats launch from one of the french beaches. Why are we paying all the millions each week to the french just to help them aid the launching of the thieving smugglers boats ? We should be starting to withdraw that funding and instead start withdrawing french trawler fishing licences that allow them to fish in British waters, a licence for every boat they let leave their shores heading to our beaches should soon wake up the french to the problem they are creating for honest British people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I was under the impression we were actually paying money - a lot of money annually to the french to help stop the boats leaving their shores but on the news channels yesterday they were all showing the french police and coast guard actively helping the boats launch from one of the french beaches. Why are we paying all the millions each week to the french just to help them aid the launching of the thieving smugglers boats ? We should be starting to withdraw that funding and instead start withdrawing french trawler fishing licences that allow them to fish in British waters, a licence for every boat they let leave their shores heading to our beaches should soon wake up the french to the problem they are creating for honest British people."
Yeah paying the French to stop the boats was a lame approach. Their own politics are hit with immigration issues. They don't have any incentives to stop the boat |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"29,437 people arrived on small boats last year, up to 300 a year can be sent to Rwanda. That means that f I am a refugee I have a 99% chance of staying in the UK.
I’d take those odds. Worst deterrent ever.
Where is the number 300 coming from? The BBC article says the capacity for detention has been increased to 2000
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866
Á qSorry, I was mistaken. The capacity of the proposed facility in Rwanda is actually 200 people annually, not 300.
Where did you get the number from? Can you share the source? The BBC article has a section discussing number of people who can be sent to Rwanda and it doesn't mention anything about the smaller capacity in Rwanda. We have over 200 case workers ready to work on the plan and plans for multiple flights. It doesn't make sense if Rwanda can take only 200.
It does not make any sense
It will be impossible for the scheme to succeed and cost too much
As Andrew Neal told Sunak, it would be cheaper to send them all to boarding school.
Home office website today shows 215,500 asylum claims. 200 a year to Rwanda will take 431 years
Can you share the source that claims Rwanda can take only 200 a year?
BBC. 8 dec 2023
‘The Home Office has said Rwanda has an initial capacity to take 200 people a year, but there are plans to increase that number when the scheme begins’
Yes, the scheme has begun now and they will increase capacity. That's the way it normally works. Why would anyone build capacity for 1000s if the plan hasn't even kicked off yet. Now that it looks like people are going to be sent, they will increase capacity.
Only another 29,237 to reach the number of people who arrived in small boats last year, when do you think they will reach that amount of places in Rwanda?
I think this question has been answered before. If you even send 2000 people this year, it will deter people from crossing in the future.
If we send 2000 then that would still give me, a refugee, a 93-94% chance of staying in the UK.
I’ll take those odds. Worst. Deterrent. Ever.
2000 this year. They could increase capacity next year. But in practice, if you just send 2000 people, take videos and advertise that amongst asylum seekers, it would be a good deterrent. Denmark uses these advertisements massively to deter immigrants. They have some strict laws around handling asylum seekers - like using asylum seekers' jewels to pay for housing them and also repatriating them the moment their home country is even moderately safe. Of course they didn't do the above to everyone who came into the country. But they did it to a few people, took videos and advertised it in places from which asylum seekers usually come from and asked them not to go to Denmark. It has worked well because Denmark gets very few asylum requests compared to rest of the European countries."
Lots of could and might going on, lots of money being spent without evidence to suggest that the ‘policy’ will be successful in deterring asylum seekers, or indeed getting people to vote Tory, which is of course the real purpose.
Until the odds are heavily against asylum seekers being allowed to stay in the UK this will never be a deterrent. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Then we should stop paying the french and direct the money into a scheme that might actually have some success like withdrawal of fishing licences or the government actually grow a pair and start towing the boats and occupants back to french beaches - the Australian government had no problem with towing them back so its about time we started returning them to the french before they land on our beaches. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"29,437 people arrived on small boats last year, up to 300 a year can be sent to Rwanda. That means that f I am a refugee I have a 99% chance of staying in the UK.
I’d take those odds. Worst deterrent ever.
Where is the number 300 coming from? The BBC article says the capacity for detention has been increased to 2000
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866
Á qSorry, I was mistaken. The capacity of the proposed facility in Rwanda is actually 200 people annually, not 300.
Where did you get the number from? Can you share the source? The BBC article has a section discussing number of people who can be sent to Rwanda and it doesn't mention anything about the smaller capacity in Rwanda. We have over 200 case workers ready to work on the plan and plans for multiple flights. It doesn't make sense if Rwanda can take only 200.
It does not make any sense
It will be impossible for the scheme to succeed and cost too much
As Andrew Neal told Sunak, it would be cheaper to send them all to boarding school.
Home office website today shows 215,500 asylum claims. 200 a year to Rwanda will take 431 years
Can you share the source that claims Rwanda can take only 200 a year?
BBC. 8 dec 2023
‘The Home Office has said Rwanda has an initial capacity to take 200 people a year, but there are plans to increase that number when the scheme begins’
Yes, the scheme has begun now and they will increase capacity. That's the way it normally works. Why would anyone build capacity for 1000s if the plan hasn't even kicked off yet. Now that it looks like people are going to be sent, they will increase capacity.
Only another 29,237 to reach the number of people who arrived in small boats last year, when do you think they will reach that amount of places in Rwanda?
I think this question has been answered before. If you even send 2000 people this year, it will deter people from crossing in the future.
If we send 2000 then that would still give me, a refugee, a 93-94% chance of staying in the UK.
I’ll take those odds. Worst. Deterrent. Ever.
2000 this year. They could increase capacity next year. But in practice, if you just send 2000 people, take videos and advertise that amongst asylum seekers, it would be a good deterrent. Denmark uses these advertisements massively to deter immigrants. They have some strict laws around handling asylum seekers - like using asylum seekers' jewels to pay for housing them and also repatriating them the moment their home country is even moderately safe. Of course they didn't do the above to everyone who came into the country. But they did it to a few people, took videos and advertised it in places from which asylum seekers usually come from and asked them not to go to Denmark. It has worked well because Denmark gets very few asylum requests compared to rest of the European countries.
Lots of could and might going on, lots of money being spent without evidence to suggest that the ‘policy’ will be successful in deterring asylum seekers, or indeed getting people to vote Tory, which is of course the real purpose.
Until the odds are heavily against asylum seekers being allowed to stay in the UK this will never be a deterrent."
I don't know why you keep complaining about money while also arguing that we are not going to send many asylum seekers. There is a paradox in your argument. If we aren't sending that many people to Rwanda, we aren't spending that much money.
Many people in this thread are trying to use half-truths and inventing reasons to criticise the policy just for the sake of criticising it.
As for Tories doing this to get people to vote for Tories, I have some news for you. Every politician does the same thing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Of course the government doesn't want to deter people from crossing. It's great for them.
^^ Ridiculous comment.
Why is this ridiculous? The anti-immigrant rhetoric is an essential part of drumming up support for right wing political parties.
That aside; processing claims doesn't resolve the fact that once the asylum seekers are on these shores they won't (or very very few) be allowed to stay; it's a paper exercise that doesn't really solve anything per se.
I mean, that's exactly what it would do.
A. Reduce costs of housing people waiting for their claims to be processed.
B. Allows genuine asylum claims to be processed quickly, getting people to work and contributing to society.
C. Those who aren't successful in their claims can be dealt with appropriately.
Those seeking asylum have effectively been conflated with economic migrants. The loop whole is exploited by the people smugglers and the conventions in place are not really able to address that.
So process them more quickly. It's the obvious answer. But of course the government is much more interesting in getting voter energised for the up coming election.
The "just process them quickly" arguments miss two important problems
- It is not that easy to process claims in the first place. How do you get evidence that someone is gay if he claims that he ran away because his country has death penalty for gays? How do you validate the claim of someone coming from a war zone when he has thrown away his documents?
- Even if we process and find that they aren't eligible for asylum, what do you do with them if their supposed home country doesn't take them in? The problem is that the moment they come inside the border and claim asylum, we can effectively do nothing to send them back to their home country.
These fringe cases don't have any bearing on the premise that if we process claims more quickly and efficiently, we'd be in a much better place.
No one is saying quicker = easier.
The issues you mentioned exist in the cases:
Quick efficient processing, lower cost to tax payers.
Slow costly processing, people making lots of money housing applicants for a long time, Tories blaming immigrants for everything.
Spunking 100s millions trafficking a small number of applicants to Rwanda to encourage xenophobes to vote for the Tories.
What makes you think that the cases I mentioned are fringe? Asylum seekers throwing away their passports is fairly common. Most people smugglers advice them to do so."
Only for Daily Mail readers.
"
You say that "No one is saying quicker = easier". And then you went on to say "Quick efficient processing, lower cost to tax payers."
You haven't said how?
"
Employ some additional staff.
"
And you still haven't answered what we are supposed to do with people whose asylum claims have failed because their countries aren't willing to take them back."
Why do I need to answer this? It's not related to the point I'm making. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This could have all been stopped and lives saved .."
We could have saved £millions, not to mention the £tens of thousands spent by conservative 'leaders' travelling to Rwanda, to pretend it's a good scheme  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Only for Daily Mail readers.
"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/24/almost-channel-migrants-arrive-without-passports-told-shred/
98% of arrivals on boats did not have a passport. Other than your baseless stereotyping of daily mail readers, your statement itself is false
"
Employ some additional staff.
"
How are additional staff going to solve the problem of handling people without documentation?
"
And you still haven't answered what we are supposed to do with people whose asylum claims have failed because their countries aren't willing to take them back.
Why do I need to answer this? It's not related to the point I'm making."
Problem - We want to control the number of asylum seekers we take.
Your solution - Just handle the requests faster.
My point was that even if you magically handle the requests faster, you can't deport them because the other countries do not take them. Hence your solution doesn't solve the problem. Can you tell me how this is unrelated to the point you are making? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Tom must say that in the same way that the dinghy people are demonised by some it's ironic that the woke lefty liberals try to dmonise anyone who reads a certain newspaper. In the same way that many labour voters are ashamed of their own flag, the British Empire and any sense of nation. These same people have never experienced living under a labour government. Mark Toms word. Labour will win the next election by a landslde, Keith Starmer will be ousted soon after and the sleeping zombies of the Looney Left will be back... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Only for Daily Mail readers.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/24/almost-channel-migrants-arrive-without-passports-told-shred/
98% of arrivals on boats did not have a passport. Other than your baseless stereotyping of daily mail readers, your statement itself is false "
Fair enough, this isn't the full picture though.
"
Employ some additional staff.
How are additional staff going to solve the problem of handling people without documentation?
"
I'm not claiming they will
"
And you still haven't answered what we are supposed to do with people whose asylum claims have failed because their countries aren't willing to take them back.
"
I'm not claiming to have this answer
"
Why do I need to answer this? It's not related to the point I'm making.
Problem - We want to control the number of asylum seekers we take.
Your solution - Just handle the requests faster.
My point was that even if you magically handle the requests faster, you can't deport them because the other countries do not take them. Hence your solution doesn't solve the problem. Can you tell me how this is unrelated to the point you are making?"
You don't need "magic" to process the claims more quickly
Your random questions aren't related because I haven't made any of the claims you are claiming that I've made by asking these questions. At no point did I say we'd have no problems. Hope that helps. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Tom must say that in the same way that the dinghy people are demonised by some it's ironic that the woke lefty liberals try to dmonise anyone who reads a certain newspaper. In the same way that many labour voters are ashamed of their own flag, the British Empire and any sense of nation. These same people have never experienced living under a labour government. Mark Toms word. Labour will win the next election by a landslde, Keith Starmer will be ousted soon after and the sleeping zombies of the Looney Left will be back... "
Lolz
Are you intentionally, or unintentionally taking the piss out of the stereotypical Daily Mail readers? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"29,437 people arrived on small boats last year, up to 300 a year can be sent to Rwanda. That means that f I am a refugee I have a 99% chance of staying in the UK.
I’d take those odds. Worst deterrent ever.
Where is the number 300 coming from? The BBC article says the capacity for detention has been increased to 2000
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866
Á qSorry, I was mistaken. The capacity of the proposed facility in Rwanda is actually 200 people annually, not 300.
Where did you get the number from? Can you share the source? The BBC article has a section discussing number of people who can be sent to Rwanda and it doesn't mention anything about the smaller capacity in Rwanda. We have over 200 case workers ready to work on the plan and plans for multiple flights. It doesn't make sense if Rwanda can take only 200.
It does not make any sense
It will be impossible for the scheme to succeed and cost too much
As Andrew Neal told Sunak, it would be cheaper to send them all to boarding school.
Home office website today shows 215,500 asylum claims. 200 a year to Rwanda will take 431 years
Can you share the source that claims Rwanda can take only 200 a year?
BBC. 8 dec 2023
‘The Home Office has said Rwanda has an initial capacity to take 200 people a year, but there are plans to increase that number when the scheme begins’
Yes, the scheme has begun now and they will increase capacity. That's the way it normally works. Why would anyone build capacity for 1000s if the plan hasn't even kicked off yet. Now that it looks like people are going to be sent, they will increase capacity.
Only another 29,237 to reach the number of people who arrived in small boats last year, when do you think they will reach that amount of places in Rwanda?
I think this question has been answered before. If you even send 2000 people this year, it will deter people from crossing in the future.
If we send 2000 then that would still give me, a refugee, a 93-94% chance of staying in the UK.
I’ll take those odds. Worst. Deterrent. Ever.
2000 this year. They could increase capacity next year. But in practice, if you just send 2000 people, take videos and advertise that amongst asylum seekers, it would be a good deterrent. Denmark uses these advertisements massively to deter immigrants. They have some strict laws around handling asylum seekers - like using asylum seekers' jewels to pay for housing them and also repatriating them the moment their home country is even moderately safe. Of course they didn't do the above to everyone who came into the country. But they did it to a few people, took videos and advertised it in places from which asylum seekers usually come from and asked them not to go to Denmark. It has worked well because Denmark gets very few asylum requests compared to rest of the European countries.
Lots of could and might going on, lots of money being spent without evidence to suggest that the ‘policy’ will be successful in deterring asylum seekers, or indeed getting people to vote Tory, which is of course the real purpose.
Until the odds are heavily against asylum seekers being allowed to stay in the UK this will never be a deterrent.
I don't know why you keep complaining about money while also arguing that we are not going to send many asylum seekers. There is a paradox in your argument. If we aren't sending that many people to Rwanda, we aren't spending that much money.
Many people in this thread are trying to use half-truths and inventing reasons to criticise the policy just for the sake of criticising it.
As for Tories doing this to get people to vote for Tories, I have some news for you. Every politician does the same thing."
£1.8 million per person, it would be cheaper to send each person on a constant round the world cruise for the next 50 years. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
As for Tories doing this to get people to vote for Tories, I have some news for you. Every politician does the same thing."
Most on the right do. But not every party uses anti immigrant rhetoric in this way. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I'm not claiming they will
I'm not claiming to have this answer
"
You did claim to have an answer in the original post that you made and I replied to:
"
So process them more quickly. It's the obvious answer.
"
Yet when I point all the problems with this "process them more quickly" solution, you don't have an answer to anything?
"
You don't need "magic" to process the claims more quickly
Your random questions aren't related because I haven't made any of the claims you are claiming that I've made by asking these questions. At no point did I say we'd have no problems. Hope that helps."
You just claimed that "processing claims quicker" is the obvious answer to the problem. If the asylum seekers aren't anyway going to be sent away, what was the point of your obvious answer? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
As for Tories doing this to get people to vote for Tories, I have some news for you. Every politician does the same thing.
Most on the right do. But not every party uses anti immigrant rhetoric in this way. "
Yes.. The politicians on the left are lovely exemplifications of moral values. A politician's goal is to win elections. They occupy political vacuum wherever available to win votes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
£1.8 million per person, it would be cheaper to send each person on a constant round the world cruise for the next 50 years."
The breakdown of that number is available in the same guardian article that cries about 1.8M per person
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/01/rwanda-plan-uk-asylum-seeker-cost-figures
UK paid 220M for economic transformation of Rwanda and in future pays 50M annually after this for the next 3 years. This money comes out of foreign aid budget which the UK already has. We are probably sending a bigger share to Rwanda now. This is not new expense on the budget.
A “five-year processing and integration package” for each relocated person costs 150K per person
They arrived the 1.8M per person by adding up all the costs and assuming that we only send 300 people in total, there by dividing 541M by 300 which is an utterly idiotic way to calculate the cost per person.
This is why I say the guardian is the daily mail of the left. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
£1.8 million per person, it would be cheaper to send each person on a constant round the world cruise for the next 50 years.
The breakdown of that number is available in the same guardian article that cries about 1.8M per person
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/01/rwanda-plan-uk-asylum-seeker-cost-figures
UK paid 220M for economic transformation of Rwanda and in future pays 50M annually after this for the next 3 years. This money comes out of foreign aid budget which the UK already has. We are probably sending a bigger share to Rwanda now. This is not new expense on the budget.
A “five-year processing and integration package” for each relocated person costs 150K per person
They arrived the 1.8M per person by adding up all the costs and assuming that we only send 300 people in total, there by dividing 541M by 300 which is an utterly idiotic way to calculate the cost per person.
This is why I say the guardian is the daily mail of the left."
We will send considerably fewer than 300 people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I'm not claiming they will
I'm not claiming to have this answer
You did claim to have an answer in the original post that you made and I replied to:
"
Correct, then you asked a bunch of other questions. Which aren't related to my point. I don't have answers to those.
"
So process them more quickly. It's the obvious answer.
Yet when I point all the problems with this "process them more quickly" solution, you don't have an answer to anything?
"
You pointed out general problems. None of which are pertinent to the speed of processing applications
"
You don't need "magic" to process the claims more quickly
Your random questions aren't related because I haven't made any of the claims you are claiming that I've made by asking these questions. At no point did I say we'd have no problems. Hope that helps.
You just claimed that "processing claims quicker" is the obvious answer to the problem. If the asylum seekers aren't anyway going to be sent away, what was the point of your obvious answer?"
Honestly not sure what your point is. You seem to be trying to shift the discussion into general problems processing claims, as if processing claims more quickly is going to encounter problems that processing claims slowly isn't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
£1.8 million per person, it would be cheaper to send each person on a constant round the world cruise for the next 50 years.
The breakdown of that number is available in the same guardian article that cries about 1.8M per person
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/01/rwanda-plan-uk-asylum-seeker-cost-figures
UK paid 220M for economic transformation of Rwanda and in future pays 50M annually after this for the next 3 years. This money comes out of foreign aid budget which the UK already has. We are probably sending a bigger share to Rwanda now. This is not new expense on the budget.
A “five-year processing and integration package” for each relocated person costs 150K per person
They arrived the 1.8M per person by adding up all the costs and assuming that we only send 300 people in total, there by dividing 541M by 300 which is an utterly idiotic way to calculate the cost per person.
This is why I say the guardian is the daily mail of the left."
The guardian isn't an interesting newspaper in my opinion. But to say it's the Daily Mail of the left is ridiculous.
The Daily Mail spreads division, outrage, and hate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
£1.8 million per person, it would be cheaper to send each person on a constant round the world cruise for the next 50 years.
The breakdown of that number is available in the same guardian article that cries about 1.8M per person
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/01/rwanda-plan-uk-asylum-seeker-cost-figures
UK paid 220M for economic transformation of Rwanda and in future pays 50M annually after this for the next 3 years. This money comes out of foreign aid budget which the UK already has. We are probably sending a bigger share to Rwanda now. This is not new expense on the budget.
A “five-year processing and integration package” for each relocated person costs 150K per person
They arrived the 1.8M per person by adding up all the costs and assuming that we only send 300 people in total, there by dividing 541M by 300 which is an utterly idiotic way to calculate the cost per person.
This is why I say the guardian is the daily mail of the left.
The guardian isn't an interesting newspaper in my opinion. But to say it's the Daily Mail of the left is ridiculous.
The Daily Mail spreads division, outrage, and hate. "
And the guardian doesn't? It outright makes lies as headlines just as in the link shared above. Their articles about racial discourse are as divisive as daily mail. Only that they spread hate in the other direction. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I'm not claiming they will
I'm not claiming to have this answer
You did claim to have an answer in the original post that you made and I replied to:
Correct, then you asked a bunch of other questions. Which aren't related to my point. I don't have answers to those.
So process them more quickly. It's the obvious answer.
Yet when I point all the problems with this "process them more quickly" solution, you don't have an answer to anything?
You pointed out general problems. None of which are pertinent to the speed of processing applications
You don't need "magic" to process the claims more quickly
Your random questions aren't related because I haven't made any of the claims you are claiming that I've made by asking these questions. At no point did I say we'd have no problems. Hope that helps.
You just claimed that "processing claims quicker" is the obvious answer to the problem. If the asylum seekers aren't anyway going to be sent away, what was the point of your obvious answer?
Honestly not sure what your point is. You seem to be trying to shift the discussion into general problems processing claims, as if processing claims more quickly is going to encounter problems that processing claims slowly isn't. "
My point is simple. We want to reduce the number of asylum seekers in this country. Your "obvious answer" doesn't do that and I explained you the reason why. So what exactly is the point of this solution you propose if it isn't going to solve the problem? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
£1.8 million per person, it would be cheaper to send each person on a constant round the world cruise for the next 50 years.
The breakdown of that number is available in the same guardian article that cries about 1.8M per person
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/01/rwanda-plan-uk-asylum-seeker-cost-figures
UK paid 220M for economic transformation of Rwanda and in future pays 50M annually after this for the next 3 years. This money comes out of foreign aid budget which the UK already has. We are probably sending a bigger share to Rwanda now. This is not new expense on the budget.
A “five-year processing and integration package” for each relocated person costs 150K per person
They arrived the 1.8M per person by adding up all the costs and assuming that we only send 300 people in total, there by dividing 541M by 300 which is an utterly idiotic way to calculate the cost per person.
This is why I say the guardian is the daily mail of the left.
We will send considerably fewer than 300 people."
Lol.. 
We have circled back to square one I guess. Have a good rest of the day  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I'm not claiming they will
I'm not claiming to have this answer
You did claim to have an answer in the original post that you made and I replied to:
Correct, then you asked a bunch of other questions. Which aren't related to my point. I don't have answers to those.
So process them more quickly. It's the obvious answer.
Yet when I point all the problems with this "process them more quickly" solution, you don't have an answer to anything?
You pointed out general problems. None of which are pertinent to the speed of processing applications
You don't need "magic" to process the claims more quickly
Your random questions aren't related because I haven't made any of the claims you are claiming that I've made by asking these questions. At no point did I say we'd have no problems. Hope that helps.
You just claimed that "processing claims quicker" is the obvious answer to the problem. If the asylum seekers aren't anyway going to be sent away, what was the point of your obvious answer?
Honestly not sure what your point is. You seem to be trying to shift the discussion into general problems processing claims, as if processing claims more quickly is going to encounter problems that processing claims slowly isn't.
My point is simple. We want to reduce the number of asylum seekers in this country. Your "obvious answer" doesn't do that and I explained you the reason why. So what exactly is the point of this solution you propose if it isn't going to solve the problem?"
The question was what's the alternative to spunking £100s millions to attract further to the right elements of the electorate. It wasn't how to "reduce the number of asylum seekers in this country". You added that.
But seeing as you ask, if your concerned about the number of asylum seekers in this country. Surely processing them more quickly would help. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
£1.8 million per person, it would be cheaper to send each person on a constant round the world cruise for the next 50 years.
The breakdown of that number is available in the same guardian article that cries about 1.8M per person
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/01/rwanda-plan-uk-asylum-seeker-cost-figures
UK paid 220M for economic transformation of Rwanda and in future pays 50M annually after this for the next 3 years. This money comes out of foreign aid budget which the UK already has. We are probably sending a bigger share to Rwanda now. This is not new expense on the budget.
A “five-year processing and integration package” for each relocated person costs 150K per person
They arrived the 1.8M per person by adding up all the costs and assuming that we only send 300 people in total, there by dividing 541M by 300 which is an utterly idiotic way to calculate the cost per person.
This is why I say the guardian is the daily mail of the left.
The guardian isn't an interesting newspaper in my opinion. But to say it's the Daily Mail of the left is ridiculous.
The Daily Mail spreads division, outrage, and hate.
And the guardian doesn't? It outright makes lies as headlines just as in the link shared above. Their articles about racial discourse are as divisive as daily mail. Only that they spread hate in the other direction."
What "other direction"? Should they not be allowed to publish non-racist, non-xenophobic, non-transphobic articles? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
£1.8 million per person, it would be cheaper to send each person on a constant round the world cruise for the next 50 years.
The breakdown of that number is available in the same guardian article that cries about 1.8M per person
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/01/rwanda-plan-uk-asylum-seeker-cost-figures
UK paid 220M for economic transformation of Rwanda and in future pays 50M annually after this for the next 3 years. This money comes out of foreign aid budget which the UK already has. We are probably sending a bigger share to Rwanda now. This is not new expense on the budget.
A “five-year processing and integration package” for each relocated person costs 150K per person
They arrived the 1.8M per person by adding up all the costs and assuming that we only send 300 people in total, there by dividing 541M by 300 which is an utterly idiotic way to calculate the cost per person.
This is why I say the guardian is the daily mail of the left.
The guardian isn't an interesting newspaper in my opinion. But to say it's the Daily Mail of the left is ridiculous.
The Daily Mail spreads division, outrage, and hate.
And the guardian doesn't? It outright makes lies as headlines just as in the link shared above. Their articles about racial discourse are as divisive as daily mail. Only that they spread hate in the other direction.
What "other direction"? Should they not be allowed to publish non-racist, non-xenophobic, non-transphobic articles?"
Here are some examples:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/mar/20/white-people-black-authors-are-not-your-medicine
Would you be ok with the daily mail publishing an article saying that "Black people, white authors are not your medicine"?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/16/racial-inequality-niceness-white-people
Would you be fine with an article that says "Black people, niceness is not the answer to racial integration"?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/16/racial-inequality-niceness-white-people
Would you be fine with an article with a headline "Muslim Fragility reinforces racism"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/19/gender-equality-women-working-men-homemakers-responsibility
Would you be fine with an article that says "Men should be the breadwinners"?
All the above articles are attacks on a specific race and sex. Hence they aren't any less hateful than the daily mail. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I'm not claiming they will
I'm not claiming to have this answer
You did claim to have an answer in the original post that you made and I replied to:
Correct, then you asked a bunch of other questions. Which aren't related to my point. I don't have answers to those.
So process them more quickly. It's the obvious answer.
Yet when I point all the problems with this "process them more quickly" solution, you don't have an answer to anything?
You pointed out general problems. None of which are pertinent to the speed of processing applications
You don't need "magic" to process the claims more quickly
Your random questions aren't related because I haven't made any of the claims you are claiming that I've made by asking these questions. At no point did I say we'd have no problems. Hope that helps.
You just claimed that "processing claims quicker" is the obvious answer to the problem. If the asylum seekers aren't anyway going to be sent away, what was the point of your obvious answer?
Honestly not sure what your point is. You seem to be trying to shift the discussion into general problems processing claims, as if processing claims more quickly is going to encounter problems that processing claims slowly isn't.
My point is simple. We want to reduce the number of asylum seekers in this country. Your "obvious answer" doesn't do that and I explained you the reason why. So what exactly is the point of this solution you propose if it isn't going to solve the problem?
The question was what's the alternative to spunking £100s millions to attract further to the right elements of the electorate. It wasn't how to "reduce the number of asylum seekers in this country". You added that.
But seeing as you ask, if your concerned about the number of asylum seekers in this country. Surely processing them more quickly would help."
We are trying to solve the problem of reducing the number of people getting into the country as asylum seekers. The Rwanda plan is an attempt to solve that. You are the one who came out of nowhere and claimed that processing them quicker is an obvious answer instead if using the Rwanda scheme. If your obvious answer doesn't really solve the problem that the Rwanda scheme is trying to solve, what exactly was the point of your obvious answer? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
£1.8 million per person, it would be cheaper to send each person on a constant round the world cruise for the next 50 years.
The breakdown of that number is available in the same guardian article that cries about 1.8M per person
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/01/rwanda-plan-uk-asylum-seeker-cost-figures
UK paid 220M for economic transformation of Rwanda and in future pays 50M annually after this for the next 3 years. This money comes out of foreign aid budget which the UK already has. We are probably sending a bigger share to Rwanda now. This is not new expense on the budget.
A “five-year processing and integration package” for each relocated person costs 150K per person
They arrived the 1.8M per person by adding up all the costs and assuming that we only send 300 people in total, there by dividing 541M by 300 which is an utterly idiotic way to calculate the cost per person.
This is why I say the guardian is the daily mail of the left.
The guardian isn't an interesting newspaper in my opinion. But to say it's the Daily Mail of the left is ridiculous.
The Daily Mail spreads division, outrage, and hate.
And the guardian doesn't? It outright makes lies as headlines just as in the link shared above. Their articles about racial discourse are as divisive as daily mail. Only that they spread hate in the other direction.
What "other direction"? Should they not be allowed to publish non-racist, non-xenophobic, non-transphobic articles?
Here are some examples:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/mar/20/white-people-black-authors-are-not-your-medicine
Would you be ok with the daily mail publishing an article saying that "Black people, white authors are not your medicine"?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/16/racial-inequality-niceness-white-people
Would you be fine with an article that says "Black people, niceness is not the answer to racial integration"?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/16/racial-inequality-niceness-white-people
Would you be fine with an article with a headline "Muslim Fragility reinforces racism"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/19/gender-equality-women-working-men-homemakers-responsibility
Would you be fine with an article that says "Men should be the breadwinners"?
All the above articles are attacks on a specific race and sex. Hence they aren't any less hateful than the daily mail."
Just to be clear, I'll quote myself.
"The guardian isn't an interesting newspaper in my opinion.".
I'm sure you can figure out why the above examples aren't comparable to the Daily Mail. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I'm not claiming they will
I'm not claiming to have this answer
You did claim to have an answer in the original post that you made and I replied to:
Correct, then you asked a bunch of other questions. Which aren't related to my point. I don't have answers to those.
So process them more quickly. It's the obvious answer.
Yet when I point all the problems with this "process them more quickly" solution, you don't have an answer to anything?
You pointed out general problems. None of which are pertinent to the speed of processing applications
You don't need "magic" to process the claims more quickly
Your random questions aren't related because I haven't made any of the claims you are claiming that I've made by asking these questions. At no point did I say we'd have no problems. Hope that helps.
You just claimed that "processing claims quicker" is the obvious answer to the problem. If the asylum seekers aren't anyway going to be sent away, what was the point of your obvious answer?
Honestly not sure what your point is. You seem to be trying to shift the discussion into general problems processing claims, as if processing claims more quickly is going to encounter problems that processing claims slowly isn't.
My point is simple. We want to reduce the number of asylum seekers in this country. Your "obvious answer" doesn't do that and I explained you the reason why. So what exactly is the point of this solution you propose if it isn't going to solve the problem?
The question was what's the alternative to spunking £100s millions to attract further to the right elements of the electorate. It wasn't how to "reduce the number of asylum seekers in this country". You added that.
But seeing as you ask, if your concerned about the number of asylum seekers in this country. Surely processing them more quickly would help.
We are trying to solve the problem of reducing the number of people getting into the country as asylum seekers. The Rwanda plan is an attempt to solve that.
"
Because you believe this, I don't see how we can continue any kind of reasonable conversation.
"
You are the one who came out of nowhere and claimed that processing them quicker is an obvious answer instead if using the Rwanda scheme. If your obvious answer doesn't really solve the problem that the Rwanda scheme is trying to solve, what exactly was the point of your obvious answer?"
As above. You're defending the Rwanda scheme based on your complete faith in the integrity of the Tories. Where can we go from there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
£1.8 million per person, it would be cheaper to send each person on a constant round the world cruise for the next 50 years.
The breakdown of that number is available in the same guardian article that cries about 1.8M per person
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/01/rwanda-plan-uk-asylum-seeker-cost-figures
UK paid 220M for economic transformation of Rwanda and in future pays 50M annually after this for the next 3 years. This money comes out of foreign aid budget which the UK already has. We are probably sending a bigger share to Rwanda now. This is not new expense on the budget.
A “five-year processing and integration package” for each relocated person costs 150K per person
They arrived the 1.8M per person by adding up all the costs and assuming that we only send 300 people in total, there by dividing 541M by 300 which is an utterly idiotic way to calculate the cost per person.
This is why I say the guardian is the daily mail of the left.
The guardian isn't an interesting newspaper in my opinion. But to say it's the Daily Mail of the left is ridiculous.
The Daily Mail spreads division, outrage, and hate.
And the guardian doesn't? It outright makes lies as headlines just as in the link shared above. Their articles about racial discourse are as divisive as daily mail. Only that they spread hate in the other direction.
What "other direction"? Should they not be allowed to publish non-racist, non-xenophobic, non-transphobic articles?
Here are some examples:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/mar/20/white-people-black-authors-are-not-your-medicine
Would you be ok with the daily mail publishing an article saying that "Black people, white authors are not your medicine"?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/16/racial-inequality-niceness-white-people
Would you be fine with an article that says "Black people, niceness is not the answer to racial integration"?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/16/racial-inequality-niceness-white-people
Would you be fine with an article with a headline "Muslim Fragility reinforces racism"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/19/gender-equality-women-working-men-homemakers-responsibility
Would you be fine with an article that says "Men should be the breadwinners"?
All the above articles are attacks on a specific race and sex. Hence they aren't any less hateful than the daily mail.
Just to be clear, I'll quote myself.
"The guardian isn't an interesting newspaper in my opinion.".
I'm sure you can figure out why the above examples aren't comparable to the Daily Mail. "
No I couldn't. You said that daily mail was worse because they were racist and xenophobic. I shared the articles from guardian which are also racist and sexist. So I need more clarification from you as to why you consider that the guardian doesn't spread hate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Because you believe this, I don't see how we can continue any kind of reasonable conversation.
"
I have posted many messages above explaining why this could reduce the number of asylum seekers coming in. You on the other hand have been making random comments without backing it with any kind of argument. You haven't answered a single question when I pointed out the flaws in what you were saying. All I get is "I don't have an answer" or "This is unrelated" even after I had to handhold you and explain how they are related. And you are the one complaining about having a "reasonable conversation"?
"
As above. You're defending the Rwanda scheme based on your complete faith in the integrity of the Tories. Where can we go from there."
I never claimed complete faith in integrity of Tories. They are on course to lose the election and are desperately trying to win some votes back hoping that the Rwanda scheme to work and we could reduce the number of people arriving on boats. But our argument was not about that, was it? We were talking about the "obvious answer" of "just process them quickly" which neither is practical nor does it solve the problem we are trying to solve. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If you break it down and peel it back, this country is arranging a safe haven for those fleeing persecution and even throwing in free transport and presumably meals an toilet facilities whist in transit. Isn't this the human thing to do,,? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
£1.8 million per person, it would be cheaper to send each person on a constant round the world cruise for the next 50 years.
The breakdown of that number is available in the same guardian article that cries about 1.8M per person
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/01/rwanda-plan-uk-asylum-seeker-cost-figures
UK paid 220M for economic transformation of Rwanda and in future pays 50M annually after this for the next 3 years. This money comes out of foreign aid budget which the UK already has. We are probably sending a bigger share to Rwanda now. This is not new expense on the budget.
A “five-year processing and integration package” for each relocated person costs 150K per person
They arrived the 1.8M per person by adding up all the costs and assuming that we only send 300 people in total, there by dividing 541M by 300 which is an utterly idiotic way to calculate the cost per person.
This is why I say the guardian is the daily mail of the left.
The guardian isn't an interesting newspaper in my opinion. But to say it's the Daily Mail of the left is ridiculous.
The Daily Mail spreads division, outrage, and hate.
And the guardian doesn't? It outright makes lies as headlines just as in the link shared above. Their articles about racial discourse are as divisive as daily mail. Only that they spread hate in the other direction.
What "other direction"? Should they not be allowed to publish non-racist, non-xenophobic, non-transphobic articles?
Here are some examples:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/mar/20/white-people-black-authors-are-not-your-medicine
Would you be ok with the daily mail publishing an article saying that "Black people, white authors are not your medicine"?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/16/racial-inequality-niceness-white-people
Would you be fine with an article that says "Black people, niceness is not the answer to racial integration"?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/16/racial-inequality-niceness-white-people
Would you be fine with an article with a headline "Muslim Fragility reinforces racism"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/19/gender-equality-women-working-men-homemakers-responsibility
Would you be fine with an article that says "Men should be the breadwinners"?
All the above articles are attacks on a specific race and sex. Hence they aren't any less hateful than the daily mail.
Just to be clear, I'll quote myself.
"The guardian isn't an interesting newspaper in my opinion.".
I'm sure you can figure out why the above examples aren't comparable to the Daily Mail.
No I couldn't. You said that daily mail was worse because they were racist and xenophobic. I shared the articles from guardian which are also racist and sexist. So I need more clarification from you as to why you consider that the guardian doesn't spread hate."
I fear that you may never grasp, even if it was explained. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" I'm not sure if the Rwanda scheme will work or not and neither has anyone else until it has been implemented, but It is amazing how people simply can't grasp the basics of the scheme.
"
"The devil is in the detail".
Seems like a lot of money to spunk away on a maybe. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *lan157Man 2 weeks ago
a village near Haywards Heath in East Sussex |
If I want to start up a business taking paying customers on a boat ride in the channel I would need licences and checks on boat worthiness etc. I would imagine France has similar laws and yet I have seen photos of French police watching boats being assembled and pushed out to sea all being organised by criminals. Clearly France is ambivalent about people drowning in the sea provided they are refugees . They could start by immobilising any dinghy with passengers on board on their beaches and paid for with UK tax payers money. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
£1.8 million per person, it would be cheaper to send each person on a constant round the world cruise for the next 50 years.
The breakdown of that number is available in the same guardian article that cries about 1.8M per person
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/01/rwanda-plan-uk-asylum-seeker-cost-figures
UK paid 220M for economic transformation of Rwanda and in future pays 50M annually after this for the next 3 years. This money comes out of foreign aid budget which the UK already has. We are probably sending a bigger share to Rwanda now. This is not new expense on the budget.
A “five-year processing and integration package” for each relocated person costs 150K per person
They arrived the 1.8M per person by adding up all the costs and assuming that we only send 300 people in total, there by dividing 541M by 300 which is an utterly idiotic way to calculate the cost per person.
This is why I say the guardian is the daily mail of the left.
The guardian isn't an interesting newspaper in my opinion. But to say it's the Daily Mail of the left is ridiculous.
The Daily Mail spreads division, outrage, and hate.
And the guardian doesn't? It outright makes lies as headlines just as in the link shared above. Their articles about racial discourse are as divisive as daily mail. Only that they spread hate in the other direction.
What "other direction"? Should they not be allowed to publish non-racist, non-xenophobic, non-transphobic articles?
Here are some examples:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/mar/20/white-people-black-authors-are-not-your-medicine
Would you be ok with the daily mail publishing an article saying that "Black people, white authors are not your medicine"?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/16/racial-inequality-niceness-white-people
Would you be fine with an article that says "Black people, niceness is not the answer to racial integration"?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/16/racial-inequality-niceness-white-people
Would you be fine with an article with a headline "Muslim Fragility reinforces racism"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/19/gender-equality-women-working-men-homemakers-responsibility
Would you be fine with an article that says "Men should be the breadwinners"?
All the above articles are attacks on a specific race and sex. Hence they aren't any less hateful than the daily mail.
Just to be clear, I'll quote myself.
"The guardian isn't an interesting newspaper in my opinion.".
I'm sure you can figure out why the above examples aren't comparable to the Daily Mail.
No I couldn't. You said that daily mail was worse because they were racist and xenophobic. I shared the articles from guardian which are also racist and sexist. So I need more clarification from you as to why you consider that the guardian doesn't spread hate.
I fear that you may never grasp, even if it was explained."
As always, no explanation or even a feeble attempt to address the point I made. It's my mistake to spend time sharing evidence and trying to have a rational debate. I won't make that mistake again |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
£1.8 million per person, it would be cheaper to send each person on a constant round the world cruise for the next 50 years.
The breakdown of that number is available in the same guardian article that cries about 1.8M per person
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/01/rwanda-plan-uk-asylum-seeker-cost-figures
UK paid 220M for economic transformation of Rwanda and in future pays 50M annually after this for the next 3 years. This money comes out of foreign aid budget which the UK already has. We are probably sending a bigger share to Rwanda now. This is not new expense on the budget.
A “five-year processing and integration package” for each relocated person costs 150K per person
They arrived the 1.8M per person by adding up all the costs and assuming that we only send 300 people in total, there by dividing 541M by 300 which is an utterly idiotic way to calculate the cost per person.
This is why I say the guardian is the daily mail of the left.
The guardian isn't an interesting newspaper in my opinion. But to say it's the Daily Mail of the left is ridiculous.
The Daily Mail spreads division, outrage, and hate.
And the guardian doesn't? It outright makes lies as headlines just as in the link shared above. Their articles about racial discourse are as divisive as daily mail. Only that they spread hate in the other direction.
What "other direction"? Should they not be allowed to publish non-racist, non-xenophobic, non-transphobic articles?
Here are some examples:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/mar/20/white-people-black-authors-are-not-your-medicine
Would you be ok with the daily mail publishing an article saying that "Black people, white authors are not your medicine"?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/16/racial-inequality-niceness-white-people
Would you be fine with an article that says "Black people, niceness is not the answer to racial integration"?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/16/racial-inequality-niceness-white-people
Would you be fine with an article with a headline "Muslim Fragility reinforces racism"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/19/gender-equality-women-working-men-homemakers-responsibility
Would you be fine with an article that says "Men should be the breadwinners"?
All the above articles are attacks on a specific race and sex. Hence they aren't any less hateful than the daily mail.
Just to be clear, I'll quote myself.
"The guardian isn't an interesting newspaper in my opinion.".
I'm sure you can figure out why the above examples aren't comparable to the Daily Mail.
No I couldn't. You said that daily mail was worse because they were racist and xenophobic. I shared the articles from guardian which are also racist and sexist. So I need more clarification from you as to why you consider that the guardian doesn't spread hate.
I fear that you may never grasp, even if it was explained.
As always, no explanation or even a feeble attempt to address the point I made. It's my mistake to spend time sharing evidence and trying to have a rational debate. I won't make that mistake again "
what was racist etc about the articles ? I looked at the first two and while I don't agree with all they say, I'm not sure I can see the racism. I think there firat one is a burn on the guardian in general. Guardian readers, guardian opinion pieces are not your answer.
Now you would be right to put the same argument to the other person. We shouldn't just go by a headline or an URL.
Maybe this should be another thread!!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" I'm not sure if the Rwanda scheme will work or not and neither has anyone else until it has been implemented, but It is amazing how people simply can't grasp the basics of the scheme.
"
which bits are they missing?
From a quick skim it's the numbers of people. However HMG have created a void here as, AFAIK, they have given no real indication either. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" I'm not sure if the Rwanda scheme will work or not and neither has anyone else until it has been implemented, but It is amazing how people simply can't grasp the basics of the scheme.
"
I agree in general terms but think that given the time between now and the GE and the fact that there will be many legal challenges, I can't see enough being sent before Labour take over. It would need to be up and running sending as many as possible to Rwanda over a decent period of time to build up a track record. I am sceptical that can be achieved before Labour come in and scrap it. If the scheme does somehow do that and start saving lives then it gives Labour a bit of a dilemma. Scrap a scheme that works and saves lives or keep it and admit they were wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Oh and the 6,500 that have arrived already this year. Which is 40% up on 2023 figures."
32.5 years to deport them @200 a year
On top of 431 years for the 215.5k on home office website, £90bn @£1.8m a head
And how much has been spent on the legal cases for this bill, and for each asylum case, I doubt we have enough interpreters
Best to see the scheme for what it is, a load of willy waving bollocks by Sunak. Nobody is stopping the boats. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 2 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
" I'm not sure if the Rwanda scheme will work or not and neither has anyone else until it has been implemented, but It is amazing how people simply can't grasp the basics of the scheme.
I agree in general terms but think that given the time between now and the GE and the fact that there will be many legal challenges, I can't see enough being sent before Labour take over. It would need to be up and running sending as many as possible to Rwanda over a decent period of time to build up a track record. I am sceptical that can be achieved before Labour come in and scrap it. If the scheme does somehow do that and start saving lives then it gives Labour a bit of a dilemma. Scrap a scheme that works and saves lives or keep it and admit they were wrong."
Starmer has drawn his line in the sand, he is going to scrap it and take out the gangs.
Today... tomorrow, however is another day.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
£1.8 million per person, it would be cheaper to send each person on a constant round the world cruise for the next 50 years.
The breakdown of that number is available in the same guardian article that cries about 1.8M per person
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/01/rwanda-plan-uk-asylum-seeker-cost-figures
UK paid 220M for economic transformation of Rwanda and in future pays 50M annually after this for the next 3 years. This money comes out of foreign aid budget which the UK already has. We are probably sending a bigger share to Rwanda now. This is not new expense on the budget.
A “five-year processing and integration package” for each relocated person costs 150K per person
They arrived the 1.8M per person by adding up all the costs and assuming that we only send 300 people in total, there by dividing 541M by 300 which is an utterly idiotic way to calculate the cost per person.
This is why I say the guardian is the daily mail of the left.
The guardian isn't an interesting newspaper in my opinion. But to say it's the Daily Mail of the left is ridiculous.
The Daily Mail spreads division, outrage, and hate.
And the guardian doesn't? It outright makes lies as headlines just as in the link shared above. Their articles about racial discourse are as divisive as daily mail. Only that they spread hate in the other direction.
What "other direction"? Should they not be allowed to publish non-racist, non-xenophobic, non-transphobic articles?
Here are some examples:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/mar/20/white-people-black-authors-are-not-your-medicine
Would you be ok with the daily mail publishing an article saying that "Black people, white authors are not your medicine"?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/16/racial-inequality-niceness-white-people
Would you be fine with an article that says "Black people, niceness is not the answer to racial integration"?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/16/racial-inequality-niceness-white-people
Would you be fine with an article with a headline "Muslim Fragility reinforces racism"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/19/gender-equality-women-working-men-homemakers-responsibility
Would you be fine with an article that says "Men should be the breadwinners"?
All the above articles are attacks on a specific race and sex. Hence they aren't any less hateful than the daily mail.
Just to be clear, I'll quote myself.
"The guardian isn't an interesting newspaper in my opinion.".
I'm sure you can figure out why the above examples aren't comparable to the Daily Mail.
No I couldn't. You said that daily mail was worse because they were racist and xenophobic. I shared the articles from guardian which are also racist and sexist. So I need more clarification from you as to why you consider that the guardian doesn't spread hate.
I fear that you may never grasp, even if it was explained.
As always, no explanation or even a feeble attempt to address the point I made. It's my mistake to spend time sharing evidence and trying to have a rational debate. I won't make that mistake again what was racist etc about the articles ? I looked at the first two and while I don't agree with all they say, I'm not sure I can see the racism. I think there firat one is a burn on the guardian in general. Guardian readers, guardian opinion pieces are not your answer.
Now you would be right to put the same argument to the other person. We shouldn't just go by a headline or an URL.
Maybe this should be another thread!!
"
The opinion pieces are still filtered by the guardian. It's not like anyone can go and write. They can't shirk away the responsibility for it.
As for what was racist about it,racism is stereotyping one's behaviour based on their race. I think making sweeping statements about a race like what the articles above do is racism. Saying that white people are reading black authors as medicine or White fragility is racism in my opinion. You make similar statements about any other race and guardian will be the first one to tell us how it's a terrible thing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ornLordMan 2 weeks ago
Wiltshire and London |
" I'm not sure if the Rwanda scheme will work or not and neither has anyone else until it has been implemented, but It is amazing how people simply can't grasp the basics of the scheme.
I agree in general terms but think that given the time between now and the GE and the fact that there will be many legal challenges, I can't see enough being sent before Labour take over. It would need to be up and running sending as many as possible to Rwanda over a decent period of time to build up a track record. I am sceptical that can be achieved before Labour come in and scrap it. If the scheme does somehow do that and start saving lives then it gives Labour a bit of a dilemma. Scrap a scheme that works and saves lives or keep it and admit they were wrong.
Starmer has drawn his line in the sand, he is going to scrap it and take out the gangs.
Today... tomorrow, however is another day. "
Well, there are various areas where Starmer is right not to go into detail because the tories will either steal the plan (e.g. non-doms) or make ridiculous unfunded spending pledges (e.g. defence) to salt the earth for Labour. However, with "smashing the gangs", I suspect that it involves co-operation with EU bodies to an extent that would have the red-wall brexiters foaming at the mouth, endangering Labour's resurgence there, so a good idea not to go into detail. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" I'm not sure if the Rwanda scheme will work or not and neither has anyone else until it has been implemented, but It is amazing how people simply can't grasp the basics of the scheme.
I agree in general terms but think that given the time between now and the GE and the fact that there will be many legal challenges, I can't see enough being sent before Labour take over. It would need to be up and running sending as many as possible to Rwanda over a decent period of time to build up a track record. I am sceptical that can be achieved before Labour come in and scrap it. If the scheme does somehow do that and start saving lives then it gives Labour a bit of a dilemma. Scrap a scheme that works and saves lives or keep it and admit they were wrong.
Starmer has drawn his line in the sand, he is going to scrap it and take out the gangs.
Today... tomorrow, however is another day.
Well, there are various areas where Starmer is right not to go into detail because the tories will either steal the plan (e.g. non-doms) or make ridiculous unfunded spending pledges (e.g. defence) to salt the earth for Labour. However, with "smashing the gangs", I suspect that it involves co-operation with EU bodies to an extent that would have the red-wall brexiters foaming at the mouth, endangering Labour's resurgence there, so a good idea not to go into detail."
Your first point on hiding ideas from 'Tory stealing' makes sense.
However, your second point, 'don't tell the constituents or they won't vote for us' is exactly what's wrong with politics.
Labour (and other parties) know that they can release details after the vote because 'who give a fuck, we'll have 5 years'. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ornLordMan 2 weeks ago
Wiltshire and London |
" I'm not sure if the Rwanda scheme will work or not and neither has anyone else until it has been implemented, but It is amazing how people simply can't grasp the basics of the scheme.
I agree in general terms but think that given the time between now and the GE and the fact that there will be many legal challenges, I can't see enough being sent before Labour take over. It would need to be up and running sending as many as possible to Rwanda over a decent period of time to build up a track record. I am sceptical that can be achieved before Labour come in and scrap it. If the scheme does somehow do that and start saving lives then it gives Labour a bit of a dilemma. Scrap a scheme that works and saves lives or keep it and admit they were wrong.
Starmer has drawn his line in the sand, he is going to scrap it and take out the gangs.
Today... tomorrow, however is another day.
Well, there are various areas where Starmer is right not to go into detail because the tories will either steal the plan (e.g. non-doms) or make ridiculous unfunded spending pledges (e.g. defence) to salt the earth for Labour. However, with "smashing the gangs", I suspect that it involves co-operation with EU bodies to an extent that would have the red-wall brexiters foaming at the mouth, endangering Labour's resurgence there, so a good idea not to go into detail.
Your first point on hiding ideas from 'Tory stealing' makes sense.
However, your second point, 'don't tell the constituents or they won't vote for us' is exactly what's wrong with politics.
Labour (and other parties) know that they can release details after the vote because 'who give a fuck, we'll have 5 years'. "
Unfortunately that's the way politics has been poisoned since 2016. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The UK must be the laughing stock of the world. They all know that if they can successfully get in to the UK then the stupid British people will give them a home, food and believe it or not money each week ! There's a hotel near Leicester that is getting paid £1million per month to house ilegal immigrants. On top of that they all get £45/week as a bit of spending money! That's one hotel, how many are there in this country costing the same? Meanwhile, us, the british tax payer can't drive down the road without swerving to avoid pot holes as the councils have no money ! The hospitals are falling down. The schools are inadequate. What the hell is going on? We have to stop these illegals getting to the UK somehow and if they find out that they will be sent back to Africa as soon as they get here well they might not be so keen to risk their life on a dinghy !! Can we all get back that rare thing called common sense please? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The UK must be the laughing stock of the world. They all know that if they can successfully get in to the UK then the stupid British people will give them a home, food and believe it or not money each week ! There's a hotel near Leicester that is getting paid £1million per month to house ilegal immigrants. On top of that they all get £45/week as a bit of spending money! That's one hotel, how many are there in this country costing the same? Meanwhile, us, the british tax payer can't drive down the road without swerving to avoid pot holes as the councils have no money ! The hospitals are falling down. The schools are inadequate. What the hell is going on? We have to stop these illegals getting to the UK somehow and if they find out that they will be sent back to Africa as soon as they get here well they might not be so keen to risk their life on a dinghy !! Can we all get back that rare thing called common sense please? "
What you describe is pretty much the French take on the matter i.e. that the UK is an El Dorado for illegal migrants through generous benefits, housing, legal aid and ultimately the right to remain. That explains why they are less than enthusiastic in a bi-lateral approach to Channel crossings - they see it is a UK self-inflicted problem. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
They call it skimming off the top.
Tell the public about a scheme a section of society will go for, then give that section a revenue of the cost, then spend that cost, but before they do they skim some money off the top for themselves.
Imagine covid and the cost, then we find out M.P's mates had set up business, Taxpayers money appears in mates bank account, that's skimming off the top.
I had always thought it was a gangster ploy, but it seems politicians have been skimming for years. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The UK must be the laughing stock of the world. They all know that if they can successfully get in to the UK then the stupid British people will give them a home, food and believe it or not money each week ! There's a hotel near Leicester that is getting paid £1million per month to house ilegal immigrants. On top of that they all get £45/week as a bit of spending money! That's one hotel, how many are there in this country costing the same? Meanwhile, us, the british tax payer can't drive down the road without swerving to avoid pot holes as the councils have no money ! The hospitals are falling down. The schools are inadequate. What the hell is going on? We have to stop these illegals getting to the UK somehow and if they find out that they will be sent back to Africa as soon as they get here well they might not be so keen to risk their life on a dinghy !! Can we all get back that rare thing called common sense please? "
France given them money too ! C 40 quid so similar. Totally worth risking ones life for a small amount more.
I agree we should be managing costs better. Irrc most of the spend is foreign aid so I doubt better management will fill lot holes. But it's still nuts how much we spend. That's probably a combo of poor planning, poor procurement, and slow processing (because when there is political will we can get thru them. See the legacy backlog).
The premise of Rwanda seems to be that it's enough of a deterrent to significantky reduce crossings. It's not immediately obvious that will be the case. If it doesn't reduce crossings then it's wasted money. And that should cause equal annoyance if you are looking at the wider UK spend.
I don't get why people who are truly worried about spend, truly worried about saving lives, and truly worried about breaking the gangs, don't demand the proper cost benefit analysis with assumptions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Allegedly some of the purpose built accommodation set aside for asylum seekers in Rwanda has already been sold off to locals which must be a nice little earner! I am sure it was all built with money we invested in the Rwanda project in the first place wasn’t it? I wonder what that smell is? The whiff of incompetence or the stench of corruption? I’d love to know who is connected in London to who in Kigali and whether they attended the same prep school? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Billions spent already and not one has been sent Rwanda yet. They are saying by July they will start leaving ? I cannot see this happening myself."
Originally they said flights by spring time, now it's supposed to be by summer. Given the legal challenges that are still to come I doubt any fights by the winter. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Does anyone know how many refugees the uk will take in return and who pays for them ? undefined irrc. Also if memory serves we take back those who commit crime or something. "
cheers,cant find anything about it but it seems crazy to spend millions on this,to then take in their imigrants
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's all very well railing against the Rwanda scheme, but what's the alternative? Nobody has come up with a workable plan for decades. The French clearly won't willingly co-operate. Do we sit back and watch out borders violated for another decade? I don't see 'safe routes' as a solution. The overspill and rejects will just resort to criminal gangs as they do now, and we are no further forward. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's all very well railing against the Rwanda scheme, but what's the alternative? Nobody has come up with a workable plan for decades. The French clearly won't willingly co-operate. Do we sit back and watch out borders violated for another decade? I don't see 'safe routes' as a solution. The overspill and rejects will just resort to criminal gangs as they do now, and we are no further forward. "
Is this a reasonable argument though? Let’s put hundreds of millions into a scheme that there is no evidence that it will work because we haven’t yet thought of a way that will work? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolutionCouple 2 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke. |
And this this morning from sky
https://news.sky.com/story/rwanda-bill-causing-migrants-to-opt-for-ireland-deputy-pm-says-13123078
"The threat of deportation to Rwanda is causing migrants to head for Ireland instead of the UK, Ireland's deputy prime minister has said."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And this this morning from sky
https://news.sky.com/story/rwanda-bill-causing-migrants-to-opt-for-ireland-deputy-pm-says-13123078
"The threat of deportation to Rwanda is causing migrants to head for Ireland instead of the UK, Ireland's deputy prime minister has said."
"
They also say over 80% are heading there via the UK.
Are we OK with them heading via the UK? Surely that gives the Irish the exact same argument we have about the French... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's all very well railing against the Rwanda scheme, but what's the alternative? Nobody has come up with a workable plan for decades. The French clearly won't willingly co-operate. Do we sit back and watch out borders violated for another decade? I don't see 'safe routes' as a solution. The overspill and rejects will just resort to criminal gangs as they do now, and we are no further forward.
Is this a reasonable argument though? Let’s put hundreds of millions into a scheme that there is no evidence that it will work because we haven’t yet thought of a way that will work?"
I'm not sure to be honest. I don't like the Rwanda scheme, but sitting on our hands doing nothing isn't appealing either. I don't have a solution, but I'm not running the country. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's all very well railing against the Rwanda scheme, but what's the alternative? Nobody has come up with a workable plan for decades. The French clearly won't willingly co-operate. Do we sit back and watch out borders violated for another decade? I don't see 'safe routes' as a solution. The overspill and rejects will just resort to criminal gangs as they do now, and we are no further forward.
Is this a reasonable argument though? Let’s put hundreds of millions into a scheme that there is no evidence that it will work because we haven’t yet thought of a way that will work?"
There is no evidence that will work because no one in Europe has tried it before. Someone has to try something. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
A question for the ones who keep complaining about the plan because it won't work. If it does work, by work I mean it acts as a deterrent and massively reduces number of people arriving by boat, would you agree that the plan was good or will you move the goal post and find some other reason to hate the plan? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And this this morning from sky
https://news.sky.com/story/rwanda-bill-causing-migrants-to-opt-for-ireland-deputy-pm-says-13123078
"The threat of deportation to Rwanda is causing migrants to head for Ireland instead of the UK, Ireland's deputy prime minister has said."
They also say over 80% are heading there via the UK.
Are we OK with them heading via the UK? Surely that gives the Irish the exact same argument we have about the French..."
Maybe the Irish could give us money the way we are giving the French |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A question for the ones who keep complaining about the plan because it won't work. If it does work, by work I mean it acts as a deterrent and massively reduces number of people arriving by boat, would you agree that the plan was good or will you move the goal post and find some other reason to hate the plan?"
it's a good question.
A plan should be judged good Les on it's outcome, more on the quality of its thinking. I'm cynical this has happened. It certainly isn't shared, and the fact we were going to go live with just a MoU amazes me. The SC findings also suggestva lack of thinking.
But ignoring that more philosophical angle.
IF the SC deemed Rwanda safe and IF crossings significantly reduced I would have said it was effective. It did what was intended. I have some wiser views around there we are shrugging off some responsibilities here but that's not what you asked.
My biggest issue now with the scheme is that HMG have strngarmed the courts to say that 2+2=5. Regardless of crossing reductions that will remain. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A question for the ones who keep complaining about the plan because it won't work. If it does work, by work I mean it acts as a deterrent and massively reduces number of people arriving by boat, would you agree that the plan was good or will you move the goal post and find some other reason to hate the plan?it's a good question.
A plan should be judged good Les on it's outcome, more on the quality of its thinking. I'm cynical this has happened. It certainly isn't shared, and the fact we were going to go live with just a MoU amazes me. The SC findings also suggestva lack of thinking.
But ignoring that more philosophical angle.
IF the SC deemed Rwanda safe and IF crossings significantly reduced I would have said it was effective. It did what was intended. I have some wiser views around there we are shrugging off some responsibilities here but that's not what you asked.
My biggest issue now with the scheme is that HMG have strngarmed the courts to say that 2+2=5. Regardless of crossing reductions that will remain. "
That's fair enough. In my opinion, charity should never be obligatory or a responsibility. It must be done by one's own will. This is why I don't agree with countries signing refugee conventions that enforce it as a rule. UK or many other countries didn't need one to help the Jews escaping the Nazis.
It is clear that most European nations do not like the way the asylum system works now. But they are all being forced to do it because of an agreement these countries signed decades back. Agreements which haven't stood the test of time. So the countries are continuing to follow those agreements against people's democratic will.
The ideal solution would be to rewrite the refugee convention entirely, which needs lot of political will and some honest conversations. But that won't happen. So countries will go for alternatives like these. If the plan succeeds in UK, I will bet all my money that other European countries will follow the same plan. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Im not sure how it will work out but it seems a very big sum of money to send a few hundred to rawanda,why not train them up and get them working and then everyone benefits"
How would this suggestion attract people who are scared of foreigners to vote Tory? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A question for the ones who keep complaining about the plan because it won't work. If it does work, by work I mean it acts as a deterrent and massively reduces number of people arriving by boat, would you agree that the plan was good or will you move the goal post and find some other reason to hate the plan?it's a good question.
A plan should be judged good Les on it's outcome, more on the quality of its thinking. I'm cynical this has happened. It certainly isn't shared, and the fact we were going to go live with just a MoU amazes me. The SC findings also suggestva lack of thinking.
But ignoring that more philosophical angle.
IF the SC deemed Rwanda safe and IF crossings significantly reduced I would have said it was effective. It did what was intended. I have some wiser views around there we are shrugging off some responsibilities here but that's not what you asked.
My biggest issue now with the scheme is that HMG have strngarmed the courts to say that 2+2=5. Regardless of crossing reductions that will remain.
That's fair enough. In my opinion, charity should never be obligatory or a responsibility. It must be done by one's own will. This is why I don't agree with countries signing refugee conventions that enforce it as a rule. UK or many other countries didn't need one to help the Jews escaping the Nazis.
It is clear that most European nations do not like the way the asylum system works now. But they are all being forced to do it because of an agreement these countries signed decades back. Agreements which haven't stood the test of time. So the countries are continuing to follow those agreements against people's democratic will.
The ideal solution would be to rewrite the refugee convention entirely, which needs lot of political will and some honest conversations. But that won't happen. So countries will go for alternatives like these. If the plan succeeds in UK, I will bet all my money that other European countries will follow the same plan."
I've read mixed views on how welcoming UK was to Jewish refugees and also seen comments (Mosley?) that show some challenge to any approach (with language that resonates with some used today).
So I think a public commitment is useful. I would say that any treaty could and should be reviewed over time. The world is much more mobile than it was.
I would ask which bits of the convention goes against the people's will, versus parts of the convention being applied weakly by countries.
Irrc asylum can be rejected if one commits a serious crime. The term is not fully defined (it should be imo) but are some of the headline cases from HMG not applying a high enough bar?
We also struggle with deportation. That feels less because of asylum rules. More other stuff. Eg how do we depirt true illegal immigrants who don't claim asylum.
(I've said before that the Rwanda scheme could work for failed asylum seekers. No need to worry about processing safety then).
But refugees are part of our world. We should do our share, through conventions or simply compassion. What we are doing with Rwanda in fear is backing away from doing the right thing. I'm not religious but I cringe when I hear MPs talk about Christian forgiveness when it's their donors making dodgy remarks. Yet show no Christian compassion for those in need. We should be the ones driving positive change (isn't Britain good for that?) rather than these defensive negative changes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've read mixed views on how welcoming UK was to Jewish refugees and also seen comments (Mosley?) that show some challenge to any approach (with language that resonates with some used today).
"
People like that will exist always. As long as they are minorities, the majority will protect the refugees. If the ones like Mosley become majority, you definitely do not want the refugees in this country. People think that writing something down as a law will magically solve the problems. A law isn't worth the paper it's written on, if the majority decide it's bullshit. At some point, the society will break down if you try to force the majority to do something against their will. You won't like the consequences of it.
"
I would ask which bits of the convention goes against the people's will, versus parts of the convention being applied weakly by countries.
"
Countries should be able to set quota on how many refugees they can take. No one has infinite resources to take everyone who comes in. Anyone committing violent crime here should be deported even if the person might face death penalty in his home country. There are many others one could add.
"
We also struggle with deportation. That feels less because of asylum rules. More other stuff. Eg how do we depirt true illegal immigrants who don't claim asylum.
"
When the laws were written, it was not easy to travel to other countries. Not the case now. They show up and most throw away their passports whicg makes it impossible to deport them. This is again the problem with the convention itself. Showing up like this in another country's border should be illegal.
"
But refugees are part of our world. We should do our share, through conventions or simply compassion.
"
Different people have different issues they prioritise. I personally give my charitable donations to orphanages. I know of someone whose donations are purely for cancer research. Different people have different issues they care about. But when you make it an obligation of the government, you are forcing everyone to care about this one issue which is immoral IMO.
When UK took Jewish refugees, many of them were housed with people who willingly took them and also paid money to take care of them. How many of you would take these refugees in your home or part away with your own money?
"
I'm not religious but I cringe when I hear MPs talk about Christian forgiveness when it's their donors making dodgy remarks. "
I agree with you on that. The thing is modern Progressive morality is just Christian mortality or Sl*ve morality as Nietzsche calls it. But then not all conservatives are religious conservatives. Most of them did not have issues taking Ukrainian refugees. The behaviour of refugees goes a long way in getting people's support for this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've read mixed views on how welcoming UK was to Jewish refugees and also seen comments (Mosley?) that show some challenge to any approach (with language that resonates with some used today).
People like that will exist always. As long as they are minorities, the majority will protect the refugees. If the ones like Mosley become majority, you definitely do not want the refugees in this country. People think that writing something down as a law will magically solve the problems. A law isn't worth the paper it's written on, if the majority decide it's bullshit. At some point, the society will break down if you try to force the majority to do something against their will. You won't like the consequences of it.
I would ask which bits of the convention goes against the people's will, versus parts of the convention being applied weakly by countries.
Countries should be able to set quota on how many refugees they can take. No one has infinite resources to take everyone who comes in. Anyone committing violent crime here should be deported even if the person might face death penalty in his home country. There are many others one could add.
We also struggle with deportation. That feels less because of asylum rules. More other stuff. Eg how do we depirt true illegal immigrants who don't claim asylum.
When the laws were written, it was not easy to travel to other countries. Not the case now. They show up and most throw away their passports whicg makes it impossible to deport them. This is again the problem with the convention itself. Showing up like this in another country's border should be illegal.
But refugees are part of our world. We should do our share, through conventions or simply compassion.
Different people have different issues they prioritise. I personally give my charitable donations to orphanages. I know of someone whose donations are purely for cancer research. Different people have different issues they care about. But when you make it an obligation of the government, you are forcing everyone to care about this one issue which is immoral IMO.
When UK took Jewish refugees, many of them were housed with people who willingly took them and also paid money to take care of them. How many of you would take these refugees in your home or part away with your own money?
I'm not religious but I cringe when I hear MPs talk about Christian forgiveness when it's their donors making dodgy remarks.
I agree with you on that. The thing is modern Progressive morality is just Christian mortality or Sl*ve morality as Nietzsche calls it. But then not all conservatives are religious conservatives. Most of them did not have issues taking Ukrainian refugees. The behaviour of refugees goes a long way in getting people's support for this."
Can't do fancy quoting as on phone and lazy.
I think a target quota could work. We need to be mindful of the international situation as refugees need to go somewhere. I'm supportive of coordination here. We need an international approach.
And an adult conversation.
I fear some of the rhetoric is becoming more mainstream due to lack of nuance. Every thread will have people lumping in asylum seekers with illegal immigration and strongly held beliefs these are all economic migrants making fake claims. Afaik there is little evidence to support this. It is hard to differentiate between majority views and loudest voices.
I also agree that there are differing views on charity being from home or state led. I end up in the middle because I wouldn't want charitable causes to become capitalised (we are getting there now with niche charities struggling in the face of the bigger ones). And because some initiates need government and international oversight. Fairly sure HMG won't let me decide visa status.
I've had debates about papers here before. Not everyone has a passport. Especially those fleeing persecution. A ridiculous number of Americans don't. And if you are fleeing a government you tend not to want to give them a heads up by applying !
Now, I may be naïve but I can't see how hard it is to disprove where someone comes from if they are lying. A translator, Google maps and Google would allow me to ask a few good questions.
And deportation issues sit outside asylum seekers. Suppose we stop taking in refugees. What do we do with the next person who rocks up with no passport? The issue doesn't go away.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I fear some of the rhetoric is becoming more mainstream due to lack of nuance. Every thread will have people lumping in asylum seekers with illegal immigration and strongly held beliefs these are all economic migrants making fake claims.
"
Because people want to be careful about who they let into their countries. Their argument is that you shouldn't take anyone in unless you have strong evidence that whatever their claim is true.
"
I also agree that there are differing views on charity being from home or state led. I end up in the middle because I wouldn't want charitable causes to become capitalised (we are getting there now with niche charities struggling in the face of the bigger ones). And because some initiates need government and international oversight. Fairly sure HMG won't let me decide visa status.
"
The question is not just about how the charity is done. But it's also about who the charity goes to. Different people want their charity to go to different things.
If an individual wants to help refugees, they must be allowed to sponsor them. But there shouldn't be any social welfare for the refugees. The individual who sponsors them must be responsible for all their expenses and housing. If the refugee commits a crime, the sponsor is responsible for that too. This way people who are genuinely compassionate about refugees can do something about it and also be responsible for it.
"
Now, I may be naïve but I can't see how hard it is to disprove where someone comes from if they are lying. A translator, Google maps and Google would allow me to ask a few good questions.
"
The reason they throw away passports is not just to make asylum claims. It's also to ensure they aren't deported.
"
And deportation issues sit outside asylum seekers. Suppose we stop taking in refugees. What do we do with the next person who rocks up with no passport? The issue doesn't go away.
"
Arrest them because it's illegal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A question for the ones who keep complaining about the plan because it won't work. If it does work, by work I mean it acts as a deterrent and massively reduces number of people arriving by boat, would you agree that the plan was good or will you move the goal post and find some other reason to hate the plan?it's a good question.
A plan should be judged good Les on it's outcome, more on the quality of its thinking. I'm cynical this has happened. It certainly isn't shared, and the fact we were going to go live with just a MoU amazes me. The SC findings also suggestva lack of thinking.
But ignoring that more philosophical angle.
IF the SC deemed Rwanda safe and IF crossings significantly reduced I would have said it was effective. It did what was intended. I have some wiser views around there we are shrugging off some responsibilities here but that's not what you asked.
My biggest issue now with the scheme is that HMG have strngarmed the courts to say that 2+2=5. Regardless of crossing reductions that will remain.
That's fair enough. In my opinion, charity should never be obligatory or a responsibility. It must be done by one's own will. This is why I don't agree with countries signing refugee conventions that enforce it as a rule. UK or many other countries didn't need one to help the Jews escaping the Nazis.
It is clear that most European nations do not like the way the asylum system works now. But they are all being forced to do it because of an agreement these countries signed decades back. Agreements which haven't stood the test of time. So the countries are continuing to follow those agreements against people's democratic will.
The ideal solution would be to rewrite the refugee convention entirely, which needs lot of political will and some honest conversations. But that won't happen. So countries will go for alternatives like these. If the plan succeeds in UK, I will bet all my money that other European countries will follow the same plan."
You should probably read up on how welcoming the UK was to Jews before saying we don’t need conventions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The reason they throw away passports is not just to make asylum claims. It's also to ensure they aren't deported.
Plus it makes it a whole lot easier to claim they came from a totally different country just to get into the UK and freeload off the State, most are chancers wanting the easy life of hand outs, thats handouts that the British tax payers are paying for. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The reason they throw away passports is not just to make asylum claims. It's also to ensure they aren't deported.
Plus it makes it a whole lot easier to claim they came from a totally different country just to get into the UK and freeload off the State, most are chancers wanting the easy life of hand outs, thats handouts that the British tax payers are paying for."
Maybe lay off the Daily Mail/Express for a few days. Might help. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A question for the ones who keep complaining about the plan because it won't work. If it does work, by work I mean it acts as a deterrent and massively reduces number of people arriving by boat, would you agree that the plan was good or will you move the goal post and find some other reason to hate the plan?it's a good question.
A plan should be judged good Les on it's outcome, more on the quality of its thinking. I'm cynical this has happened. It certainly isn't shared, and the fact we were going to go live with just a MoU amazes me. The SC findings also suggestva lack of thinking.
But ignoring that more philosophical angle.
IF the SC deemed Rwanda safe and IF crossings significantly reduced I would have said it was effective. It did what was intended. I have some wiser views around there we are shrugging off some responsibilities here but that's not what you asked.
My biggest issue now with the scheme is that HMG have strngarmed the courts to say that 2+2=5. Regardless of crossing reductions that will remain.
That's fair enough. In my opinion, charity should never be obligatory or a responsibility. It must be done by one's own will. This is why I don't agree with countries signing refugee conventions that enforce it as a rule. UK or many other countries didn't need one to help the Jews escaping the Nazis.
It is clear that most European nations do not like the way the asylum system works now. But they are all being forced to do it because of an agreement these countries signed decades back. Agreements which haven't stood the test of time. So the countries are continuing to follow those agreements against people's democratic will.
The ideal solution would be to rewrite the refugee convention entirely, which needs lot of political will and some honest conversations. But that won't happen. So countries will go for alternatives like these. If the plan succeeds in UK, I will bet all my money that other European countries will follow the same plan.
You should probably read up on how welcoming the UK was to Jews before saying we don’t need conventions."
UK took 70,000 refugees before the world war and about 10,000 after the war.
This is the issue here - Every country has limited wealth and resources. There are numerous problems around the world. You can't solve all these problems. You have to prioritise some over other.
You think getting refugees is more important? I think taking care of orphans around the world is even more important. Someone else may think investing in cancer research is more important. Unfortunately we don't have enough resources to pay for all three.
If we really care about individualism and personal responsibility, I should be allowed to spend money on orphanages and you should be allowed to spend money on refugees.
This is exactly what happened during the world war. Unlike the modern day virtue signallers on the internet, many British people volunteered to host the refugees in their own house and pay for it too.
Instead, we have these agreements which forced everyone's money on a single cause whether we all like it or not. This is the root of discontent. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I'm not gonna keep requiring as it fucks up thread lengths.
I agree that people may throw away ID to help prevent deportation. That doesn't go away tho if we don't accept asylum seekers. Deportation issues are imo spereate to asylum issues.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A question for the ones who keep complaining about the plan because it won't work. If it does work, by work I mean it acts as a deterrent and massively reduces number of people arriving by boat, would you agree that the plan was good or will you move the goal post and find some other reason to hate the plan?it's a good question.
A plan should be judged good Les on it's outcome, more on the quality of its thinking. I'm cynical this has happened. It certainly isn't shared, and the fact we were going to go live with just a MoU amazes me. The SC findings also suggestva lack of thinking.
But ignoring that more philosophical angle.
IF the SC deemed Rwanda safe and IF crossings significantly reduced I would have said it was effective. It did what was intended. I have some wiser views around there we are shrugging off some responsibilities here but that's not what you asked.
My biggest issue now with the scheme is that HMG have strngarmed the courts to say that 2+2=5. Regardless of crossing reductions that will remain.
That's fair enough. In my opinion, charity should never be obligatory or a responsibility. It must be done by one's own will. This is why I don't agree with countries signing refugee conventions that enforce it as a rule. UK or many other countries didn't need one to help the Jews escaping the Nazis.
It is clear that most European nations do not like the way the asylum system works now. But they are all being forced to do it because of an agreement these countries signed decades back. Agreements which haven't stood the test of time. So the countries are continuing to follow those agreements against people's democratic will.
The ideal solution would be to rewrite the refugee convention entirely, which needs lot of political will and some honest conversations. But that won't happen. So countries will go for alternatives like these. If the plan succeeds in UK, I will bet all my money that other European countries will follow the same plan.
You should probably read up on how welcoming the UK was to Jews before saying we don’t need conventions.
UK took 70,000 refugees before the world war and about 10,000 after the war.
This is the issue here - Every country has limited wealth and resources. There are numerous problems around the world. You can't solve all these problems. You have to prioritise some over other.
You think getting refugees is more important? I think taking care of orphans around the world is even more important. Someone else may think investing in cancer research is more important. Unfortunately we don't have enough resources to pay for all three.
If we really care about individualism and personal responsibility, I should be allowed to spend money on orphanages and you should be allowed to spend money on refugees.
This is exactly what happened during the world war. Unlike the modern day virtue signallers on the internet, many British people volunteered to host the refugees in their own house and pay for it too.
Instead, we have these agreements which forced everyone's money on a single cause whether we all like it or not. This is the root of discontent. "
I get your point. I don't fully believe that this is everyonea root of discontent. But it's a wider point when it comes to the state and spending. From foreign aid, to infrastructure, to benefits. We could bin the pension and let individuals decide if they want to sponsored an OAP. Or let there be a kickstarter for the next high speed rail idea.
Where and how we draw the line is personal preference. The irony is, unless people are actually put off by Rwanda, HMG are probably giving more away than today and so taking more money way from orphanages and cancer.
And we all virtue signal in a way. Unless you've taken in a load of orphans (which you may, I have no idea) and the cancer supporting friend has cut out all cargogens, we tend to thrown money before time and personal inconvenience. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I don't fully believe that this is everyonea root of discontent. But it's a wider point when it comes to the state and spending. From foreign aid, to infrastructure, to benefits. We could bin the pension and let individuals decide if they want to sponsored an OAP. Or let there be a kickstarter for the next high speed rail idea.
Where and how we draw the line is personal preference. The irony is, unless people are actually put off by Rwanda, HMG are probably giving more away than today and so taking more money way from orphanages and cancer.
And we all virtue signal in a way. Unless you've taken in a load of orphans (which you may, I have no idea) and the cancer supporting friend has cut out all cargogens, we tend to thrown money before time and personal inconvenience. "
I can explain why this is an area or discontent. There are levels to it:
- The first level is what I proposed. Individuals do charity by their own will. It's not socialised.
- But we already socialise charity in the form of social welfare. This is the second level. But then, these welfare decisions are democratically decided. Everything from NHS budget to unemployment benefits are set by government policy we can all vote and change.
- The charity for refugees is at the third level where the charity is socialised, and yet no one has control over it. People around Europe have repeatedly voted against it and yet it doesn't change because countries are following age old agreements like it's some bible.
Socialising charity but not giving people any control over it is what fuels discontent. If this continues, it won't end well. Then don't complain when parties like AfD get elected. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Unlike the modern day virtue signallers on the internet, many British people volunteered to host the refugees in their own house and pay for it too
People haven't got the room today  "
That interview they did at the protest was funny - Refugees welcome, but not in my home. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Unlike the modern day virtue signallers on the internet, many British people volunteered to host the refugees in their own house and pay for it too
People haven't got the room today
That interview they did at the protest was funny - Refugees welcome, but not in my home."
That's right, the only options are refugees should stay at non-xenophobes houses, or be trafficked to Rwanda. There are no other viable alternatives. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I don't fully believe that this is everyonea root of discontent. But it's a wider point when it comes to the state and spending. From foreign aid, to infrastructure, to benefits. We could bin the pension and let individuals decide if they want to sponsored an OAP. Or let there be a kickstarter for the next high speed rail idea.
Where and how we draw the line is personal preference. The irony is, unless people are actually put off by Rwanda, HMG are probably giving more away than today and so taking more money way from orphanages and cancer.
And we all virtue signal in a way. Unless you've taken in a load of orphans (which you may, I have no idea) and the cancer supporting friend has cut out all cargogens, we tend to thrown money before time and personal inconvenience.
I can explain why this is an area or discontent. There are levels to it:
- The first level is what I proposed. Individuals do charity by their own will. It's not socialised.
- But we already socialise charity in the form of social welfare. This is the second level. But then, these welfare decisions are democratically decided. Everything from NHS budget to unemployment benefits are set by government policy we can all vote and change.
- The charity for refugees is at the third level where the charity is socialised, and yet no one has control over it. People around Europe have repeatedly voted against it and yet it doesn't change because countries are following age old agreements like it's some bible.
Socialising charity but not giving people any control over it is what fuels discontent. If this continues, it won't end well. Then don't complain when parties like AfD get elected."
I do take your point. I agree it's harder to change or step away from international agreements but it can be done via local democracy.
The refugee convention is a harder one as it makes you look like a dick, even if it's only elements you have issues with.
My bit tho, is I'm unclear which bits of the convention people are unhappy with and want changed. Being out of the convention doesn't make deportation easier.
I can't see how a "charity starts at home" really world here. We either support asylum seekers or we don't.
I also don't see the same emotion for other international treaties. There's pressure as part of NATO to spend a lot more money.
What seems to be missing is political will despite there being local support for change across many countries.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
My bit tho, is I'm unclear which bits of the convention people are unhappy with and want changed. Being out of the convention doesn't make deportation easier.
"
The ones on top of mind are lack of any upper limits that's aggravated by ability of people to mobilise and inability of countries to neither deport nor punish people who come in illegally practically making it an open border.
"
I can't see how a "charity starts at home" really world here. We either support asylum seekers or we don't.
"
It will work exactly how it worked during the world war. People can take refugees in their own homes and take complete responsibility for their actions, including crimes. There are numerous checks which happen for skilled immigrants, like health status and crime records. These things don't happen for asylum seekers. If you want to take a refugee, be ready to fund them and also take responsibility for their behaviour.
"
I also don't see the same emotion for other international treaties. There's pressure as part of NATO to spend a lot more money.
"
Because people see the need, especially after seeing Russia's actions. When their own lives are in danger, they are obviously going to prioritise that first. You can't think about helping refugees if you are under Putin's control.
"
What seems to be missing is political will despite there being local support for change across many countries.
"
Yes! This is what leaves me flabbergasted. You have so many right wing parties winning across Europe. Yet no one has even opened their mouth about changing these agreements. Maybe things will change after the EU elections as it looks like right wingers are going to win most seats.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
My bit tho, is I'm unclear which bits of the convention people are unhappy with and want changed. Being out of the convention doesn't make deportation easier.
The ones on top of mind are lack of any upper limits that's aggravated by ability of people to mobilise and inability of countries to neither deport nor punish people who come in illegally practically making it an open border.
I can't see how a "charity starts at home" really world here. We either support asylum seekers or we don't.
It will work exactly how it worked during the world war. People can take refugees in their own homes and take complete responsibility for their actions, including crimes. There are numerous checks which happen for skilled immigrants, like health status and crime records. These things don't happen for asylum seekers. If you want to take a refugee, be ready to fund them and also take responsibility for their behaviour.
I also don't see the same emotion for other international treaties. There's pressure as part of NATO to spend a lot more money.
Because people see the need, especially after seeing Russia's actions. When their own lives are in danger, they are obviously going to prioritise that first. You can't think about helping refugees if you are under Putin's control.
What seems to be missing is political will despite there being local support for change across many countries.
Yes! This is what leaves me flabbergasted. You have so many right wing parties winning across Europe. Yet no one has even opened their mouth about changing these agreements. Maybe things will change after the EU elections as it looks like right wingers are going to win most seats.
"
I still don't understand how inability to deport is due to the convention.
Did we accept all Jews without checking pre 1939?
Taking responsibility for another person's behaviour is a jump from charity. There will always be bad eggs. The same way some orphans will be bad. If we can't do background checks we'll enough in this day and age (and I agree we can't) that's not the conventions fault that's our governments. I know that there are cases where peoplw turn out to have histories. But how did we then find that out ? In theory we should never know bad man X was actually band man Y with a string of offences.
And such an approach feels ripe for abuse.
I can't argue the system is perfect or even works at time. I'd love to see changes. I'm just not at the end of the scale which says we should get out of international conventions designed to help those in needed and rely on individual charity especially. That's partly because I see this as an international problem and so want to see more cooperation. Not less. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I still don't understand how inability to deport is due to the convention.
"
The inability to deport is only partially due to convention. You can't deport criminals if there is a chance of death penalty in their home country and few other reasons. The bigger problem though is that you can't arrest someone for breaching your border if they claim asylum. Deportation is the supposed solution to that which doesn't work.
"
Did we accept all Jews without checking pre 1939?
"
No. Britain ensured that there is home for them provided by people who volunteered. The system automatically made sure that Britain took enough number of refugees they can handle. Plus it wasn't a time when it was easy for any random person to travel to UK.
"
Taking responsibility for another person's behaviour is a jump from charity. There will always be bad eggs. The same way some orphans will be bad. If we can't do background checks we'll enough in this day and age (and I agree we can't) that's not the conventions fault that's our governments. I know that there are cases where peoplw turn out to have histories. But how did we then find that out ? In theory we should never know bad man X was actually band man Y with a string of offences.
"
Charity is about making personal sacrifice. If you don't, it ain't charity. Making other people to put up with the decisions you made ain't charity either. The refugee problem is two pronged- social and economical.
You take economic responsibility by paying for their housing, healthcare and food. You take social responsibility by ensuring that they know how the culture works here. If they are coming from a country where men are told from their childhood that women are supposed to cover their body from top to bottom and d*unk women are sinners, it's your duty to teach them it's wrong. This is how you stop events like the Cologne new year attacks from happening.
Maybe we can set a limit on number of years for which you are socially responsible. But we can't just let you bring some random person and leave them run free in the society.
"
I can't argue the system is perfect or even works at time. I'd love to see changes. I'm just not at the end of the scale which says we should get out of international conventions designed to help those in needed and rely on individual charity especially. That's partly because I see this as an international problem and so want to see more cooperation. Not less. "
That's fair enough. In my opinion, a democracy will work only as long as the majority in a country feel that it's working. If they realise that they can't change anything in spite of majority vote, they will just sign up for fascism.
Just a note, I don't believe that there is even a little bit chance to make the system work the way I suggested. We are too much down the rabbit hole of socialised charity. Given the circumstances, I also prefer countries getting together and rewrite the agreement. If that has no chance of happening and the Rwanda scheme works out as they promised, I would consider it fair. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 2 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Unlike the modern day virtue signallers on the internet, many British people volunteered to host the refugees in their own house and pay for it too
People haven't got the room today
That interview they did at the protest was funny - Refugees welcome, but not in my home."
The look of give me an excuse was shockingly telling, as was the look of confusion after being asked that question.
NIMBY |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A question for the ones who keep complaining about the plan because it won't work. If it does work, by work I mean it acts as a deterrent and massively reduces number of people arriving by boat, would you agree that the plan was good or will you move the goal post and find some other reason to hate the plan?it's a good question.
A plan should be judged good Les on it's outcome, more on the quality of its thinking. I'm cynical this has happened. It certainly isn't shared, and the fact we were going to go live with just a MoU amazes me. The SC findings also suggestva lack of thinking.
But ignoring that more philosophical angle.
IF the SC deemed Rwanda safe and IF crossings significantly reduced I would have said it was effective. It did what was intended. I have some wiser views around there we are shrugging off some responsibilities here but that's not what you asked.
My biggest issue now with the scheme is that HMG have strngarmed the courts to say that 2+2=5. Regardless of crossing reductions that will remain.
That's fair enough. In my opinion, charity should never be obligatory or a responsibility. It must be done by one's own will. This is why I don't agree with countries signing refugee conventions that enforce it as a rule. UK or many other countries didn't need one to help the Jews escaping the Nazis.
It is clear that most European nations do not like the way the asylum system works now. But they are all being forced to do it because of an agreement these countries signed decades back. Agreements which haven't stood the test of time. So the countries are continuing to follow those agreements against people's democratic will.
The ideal solution would be to rewrite the refugee convention entirely, which needs lot of political will and some honest conversations. But that won't happen. So countries will go for alternatives like these. If the plan succeeds in UK, I will bet all my money that other European countries will follow the same plan.
You should probably read up on how welcoming the UK was to Jews before saying we don’t need conventions.
UK took 70,000 refugees before the world war and about 10,000 after the war.
This is the issue here - Every country has limited wealth and resources. There are numerous problems around the world. You can't solve all these problems. You have to prioritise some over other.
You think getting refugees is more important? I think taking care of orphans around the world is even more important. Someone else may think investing in cancer research is more important. Unfortunately we don't have enough resources to pay for all three.
If we really care about individualism and personal responsibility, I should be allowed to spend money on orphanages and you should be allowed to spend money on refugees.
This is exactly what happened during the world war. Unlike the modern day virtue signallers on the internet, many British people volunteered to host the refugees in their own house and pay for it too.
Instead, we have these agreements which forced everyone's money on a single cause whether we all like it or not. This is the root of discontent. "
Where do you get the figure for 70,000 Jewish refugees pre-war? From everything I have read the Home Office had very strict rules for who it would admit and only those who were exceptional in their field were allowed access, as well as those who were very wealthy. Normal Jews were only allowed if they could secure employment in a household.
It wasn’t until 1938-ish that the Kindertransport scheme began and that only took 10,000 children. Then the Kitchener camps which took up to 4,000 adults.
The UK, in common with much of Europe was not exactly friendly to Jews pre war, and it was only the kindness of individuals that saved lives. Imagine how many Jews would’ve escaped death in the concentration camps had we had a refugee convention back then? There would, of course, still have been people who would’ve wanted them turned back at the beaches because we ‘couldn’t afford’ to save them.
What price a human life? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A question for the ones who keep complaining about the plan because it won't work. If it does work, by work I mean it acts as a deterrent and massively reduces number of people arriving by boat, would you agree that the plan was good or will you move the goal post and find some other reason to hate the plan?it's a good question.
A plan should be judged good Les on it's outcome, more on the quality of its thinking. I'm cynical this has happened. It certainly isn't shared, and the fact we were going to go live with just a MoU amazes me. The SC findings also suggestva lack of thinking.
But ignoring that more philosophical angle.
IF the SC deemed Rwanda safe and IF crossings significantly reduced I would have said it was effective. It did what was intended. I have some wiser views around there we are shrugging off some responsibilities here but that's not what you asked.
My biggest issue now with the scheme is that HMG have strngarmed the courts to say that 2+2=5. Regardless of crossing reductions that will remain.
That's fair enough. In my opinion, charity should never be obligatory or a responsibility. It must be done by one's own will. This is why I don't agree with countries signing refugee conventions that enforce it as a rule. UK or many other countries didn't need one to help the Jews escaping the Nazis.
It is clear that most European nations do not like the way the asylum system works now. But they are all being forced to do it because of an agreement these countries signed decades back. Agreements which haven't stood the test of time. So the countries are continuing to follow those agreements against people's democratic will.
The ideal solution would be to rewrite the refugee convention entirely, which needs lot of political will and some honest conversations. But that won't happen. So countries will go for alternatives like these. If the plan succeeds in UK, I will bet all my money that other European countries will follow the same plan.
You should probably read up on how welcoming the UK was to Jews before saying we don’t need conventions.
UK took 70,000 refugees before the world war and about 10,000 after the war.
This is the issue here - Every country has limited wealth and resources. There are numerous problems around the world. You can't solve all these problems. You have to prioritise some over other.
You think getting refugees is more important? I think taking care of orphans around the world is even more important. Someone else may think investing in cancer research is more important. Unfortunately we don't have enough resources to pay for all three.
If we really care about individualism and personal responsibility, I should be allowed to spend money on orphanages and you should be allowed to spend money on refugees.
This is exactly what happened during the world war. Unlike the modern day virtue signallers on the internet, many British people volunteered to host the refugees in their own house and pay for it too.
Instead, we have these agreements which forced everyone's money on a single cause whether we all like it or not. This is the root of discontent.
Where do you get the figure for 70,000 Jewish refugees pre-war? From everything I have read the Home Office had very strict rules for who it would admit and only those who were exceptional in their field were allowed access, as well as those who were very wealthy. Normal Jews were only allowed if they could secure employment in a household.
It wasn’t until 1938-ish that the Kindertransport scheme began and that only took 10,000 children. Then the Kitchener camps which took up to 4,000 adults.
The UK, in common with much of Europe was not exactly friendly to Jews pre war, and it was only the kindness of individuals that saved lives. Imagine how many Jews would’ve escaped death in the concentration camps had we had a refugee convention back then? There would, of course, still have been people who would’ve wanted them turned back at the beaches because we ‘couldn’t afford’ to save them.
What price a human life?"
JewishMuseum website has the numbers I mentioned.
Having a refugee convention doesn't magically create houses and resources needed for refugees. Having a refugee convention doesn't magically create goodwill towards Refugees. In fact, it does the opposite because it forces people against their will.
A law is not worth the paper it's written on if majority people decdied it's bullshit. If we have multiple international conventions each for one charitable cause that forces you to pay money for these causes, would you accept it? Especially if you can't democratically change it?
Taking refugees should be a country's internal decision, not something forced by international treaties. There is absolutely nothing you gain by forcing majority against their will. It only results in resentment and some terrible outcomes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *I TwoCouple 6 days ago
all around |
It could be a stroke of genius if the illegals run away in fear of being sent to Rwanda
Maybe the boats will be heading back to France 
The government should donate free rubber dinghys at the South coast and a free tow across the shipping channel from tbe RN  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
