FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > £165,000 on flight to Rwanda
£165,000 on flight to Rwanda
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *andu66 OP Couple 39 weeks ago
South Devon |
James Cleverly spent £165,000 on flight to Rwanda to sign deportation deal
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/22/james-cleverly-spent-165000-on-flight-to-rwanda-to-sign-deportation-deal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
And UK will pay at least £370m to Rwanda as part of this plan to relocate asylum seekers
The cost of the legal work and challenges.
Add £2bn a year supporting those here and the 215,000 asylum cases on home office claim list and the lawyers, courts, appeals etc
This dwarfs what’s being asked by our junior doctors for pay catch up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 39 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"And UK will pay at least £370m to Rwanda as part of this plan to relocate asylum seekers
The cost of the legal work and challenges.
Add £2bn a year supporting those here and the 215,000 asylum cases on home office claim list and the lawyers, courts, appeals etc
This dwarfs what’s being asked by our junior doctors for pay catch up. "
The yearly bill for housing, clothing and feeding those who make the illegal crossing into the country is approximately £8 billion, that does not go away, add to this what the doctors want and you can now hopefully understand why something needs to be done to resolve the issue?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And UK will pay at least £370m to Rwanda as part of this plan to relocate asylum seekers
The cost of the legal work and challenges.
Add £2bn a year supporting those here and the 215,000 asylum cases on home office claim list and the lawyers, courts, appeals etc
This dwarfs what’s being asked by our junior doctors for pay catch up.
The yearly bill for housing, clothing and feeding those who make the illegal crossing into the country is approximately £8 billion, that does not go away, add to this what the doctors want and you can now hopefully understand why something needs to be done to resolve the issue?
"
Have you seen the video going around on WhatsApp showing the new five star accommodation provided.
Luxury en suites suites with tv over bath, spa baths, queen size beds. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And UK will pay at least £370m to Rwanda as part of this plan to relocate asylum seekers
The cost of the legal work and challenges.
Add £2bn a year supporting those here and the 215,000 asylum cases on home office claim list and the lawyers, courts, appeals etc
This dwarfs what’s being asked by our junior doctors for pay catch up.
The yearly bill for housing, clothing and feeding those who make the illegal crossing into the country is approximately £8 billion, that does not go away, add to this what the doctors want and you can now hopefully understand why something needs to be done to resolve the issue?
"
This document: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/illegal-migration-bill-overarching-factsheet#:~:text=The%20current%20broken%20asylum%20system%20costs%20the%20UK%20around%20%C2%A3,government%20and%20other%20local%20services.
puts it at £5.1Bn, which is of course not nothing but still £3Bn less than your figure, where does yours come from?
No one would reasonably argue the situation is good or sustainable. That's not incompatible with questioning the increasingly stupid, ineffective, inhumane and fabulously wasteful Rwanda plan. At this rate for every migrant who actually makes it there it would have been cheaper to buy them a luxury flat and a Porsche each. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Have you seen the video going around on WhatsApp showing the new five star accommodation provided.
Luxury en suites suites with tv over bath, spa baths, queen size beds. "
Definitely true and absolutely not hard-right disinformation... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No one would reasonably argue the situation is good or sustainable. That's not incompatible with questioning the increasingly stupid, ineffective, inhumane and fabulously wasteful Rwanda plan."
What exactly do you think is 'inhumane' about the Rwanda plan? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No one would reasonably argue the situation is good or sustainable. That's not incompatible with questioning the increasingly stupid, ineffective, inhumane and fabulously wasteful Rwanda plan.
What exactly do you think is 'inhumane' about the Rwanda plan?"
Sending people to Rwanda.
I encourage you to read up on Rwanda. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No one would reasonably argue the situation is good or sustainable. That's not incompatible with questioning the increasingly stupid, ineffective, inhumane and fabulously wasteful Rwanda plan."
"What exactly do you think is 'inhumane' about the Rwanda plan?"
"Sending people to Rwanda.
I encourage you to read up on Rwanda."
The problem there is that when I read things about Rwanda, I judge them based on my own morals. I can't see the moral values in your head, so I can't tell what makes you think that Rwanda is an 'inhumane' place. The only way I can discover that is to ask you, and have you explain it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Starter for 10:
"In a unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that there are substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers removed to Rwanda would face a real risk of being returned to their home country where they could face ill-treatment, known as refoulement. This would put the UK in breach of its obligations of nonrefoulement under international and domestic law.
This decision vindicates what many have already said: The deal is not only cruel but unlawful.
The Supreme Court drew attention to Rwanda’s poor human rights record, including threats to Rwandans living in the UK, alongside extrajudicial killings, deaths in custody, enforced disappearances, torture, and restrictions on media and political freedoms.
When the agreement between the UK and Rwanda was announced in 2022, Human Rights Watch wrote to the UK Home Secretary, expressing that Rwanda could not be considered a safe third country given ongoing human rights violations.
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) gave damning evidence of systemic defects in Rwanda’s asylum system, the potential lack of independence of the judiciary and lawyers, and the 100 percent rejection rate for people from conflict zones, namely Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen – likely countries of origin of asylum seekers transferred from the UK. The UNHCR also presented at least 100 allegations of refoulement, a practice that continued after the UK agreement was concluded." (from hrw.org) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 39 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"And UK will pay at least £370m to Rwanda as part of this plan to relocate asylum seekers
The cost of the legal work and challenges.
Add £2bn a year supporting those here and the 215,000 asylum cases on home office claim list and the lawyers, courts, appeals etc
This dwarfs what’s being asked by our junior doctors for pay catch up.
The yearly bill for housing, clothing and feeding those who make the illegal crossing into the country is approximately £8 billion, that does not go away, add to this what the doctors want and you can now hopefully understand why something needs to be done to resolve the issue?
This document: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/illegal-migration-bill-overarching
puts it at £5.1Bn, which is of course not nothing but still £3Bn less than your figure, where does yours come from?
No one would reasonably argue the situation is good or sustainable. That's not incompatible with questioning the increasingly stupid, ineffective, inhumane and fabulously wasteful Rwanda plan. At this rate for every migrant who actually makes it there it would have been cheaper to buy them a luxury flat and a Porsche each."
I’ve removed the link so hopefully replies will format correctly.
The bill runs into billions and conducting a quick search I think I’ve confused 8 million a day with 8 billion a year. Either way the bill is running into billions a year being spent on people entering the country illegally.
The Rwanda scheme is goi g to cost a lot up front, and if it works will bring savings and stop crossings well into the future.
Right now the media and critics are concentrating the number on day 1 and not being fully transparent in outlining the savings are over a period of time as the scheme reduces the numbers.
Of course people will grasp at the headline of immediate costs, it proves their point but really doesn’t at the same time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 39 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Starter for 10:
"In a unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that there are substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers removed to Rwanda would face a real risk of being returned to their home country where they could face ill-treatment, known as refoulement. This would put the UK in breach of its obligations of nonrefoulement under international and domestic law.
This decision vindicates what many have already said: The deal is not only cruel but unlawful.
The Supreme Court drew attention to Rwanda’s poor human rights record, including threats to Rwandans living in the UK, alongside extrajudicial killings, deaths in custody, enforced disappearances, torture, and restrictions on media and political freedoms.
When the agreement between the UK and Rwanda was announced in 2022, Human Rights Watch wrote to the UK Home Secretary, expressing that Rwanda could not be considered a safe third country given ongoing human rights violations.
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) gave damning evidence of systemic defects in Rwanda’s asylum system, the potential lack of independence of the judiciary and lawyers, and the 100 percent rejection rate for people from conflict zones, namely Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen – likely countries of origin of asylum seekers transferred from the UK. The UNHCR also presented at least 100 allegations of refoulement, a practice that continued after the UK agreement was concluded." (from hrw.org)"
Is this the same UNHCR that uses Rwanda to house refugees? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I’ve removed the link so hopefully replies will format correctly.
The bill runs into billions and conducting a quick search I think I’ve confused 8 million a day with 8 billion a year. Either way the bill is running into billions a year being spent on people entering the country illegally.
The Rwanda scheme is goi g to cost a lot up front, and if it works will bring savings and stop crossings well into the future.
Right now the media and critics are concentrating the number on day 1 and not being fully transparent in outlining the savings are over a period of time as the scheme reduces the numbers.
Of course people will grasp at the headline of immediate costs, it proves their point but really doesn’t at the same time. "
That's not why people are concerned about the upfront cost. I mean it IS a concern given that the scheme has been going typically well for the kinds of schemes this government dreams up - Cleverly is now fronting something he referred to only months ago as a "shitshow" - but it's not because people are stubbornly refusing to admit that there is a slim possibility of a saving at the other end.
If you look at everything that's taken place on this since the start, from the gob-smacking overspend to pictures of Suella cackling like a pissed bridesmaid in front of buildings designed to house helpless and terrified people to revelations of just quite how dodgy our overseas partners are on the whole human rights thing, it's really not people's refusal to speculate about a remotely distant financial upside that is the problem here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 39 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"
I’ve removed the link so hopefully replies will format correctly.
The bill runs into billions and conducting a quick search I think I’ve confused 8 million a day with 8 billion a year. Either way the bill is running into billions a year being spent on people entering the country illegally.
The Rwanda scheme is goi g to cost a lot up front, and if it works will bring savings and stop crossings well into the future.
Right now the media and critics are concentrating the number on day 1 and not being fully transparent in outlining the savings are over a period of time as the scheme reduces the numbers.
Of course people will grasp at the headline of immediate costs, it proves their point but really doesn’t at the same time.
That's not why people are concerned about the upfront cost. I mean it IS a concern given that the scheme has been going typically well for the kinds of schemes this government dreams up - Cleverly is now fronting something he referred to only months ago as a "shitshow" - but it's not because people are stubbornly refusing to admit that there is a slim possibility of a saving at the other end.
If you look at everything that's taken place on this since the start, from the gob-smacking overspend to pictures of Suella cackling like a pissed bridesmaid in front of buildings designed to house helpless and terrified people to revelations of just quite how dodgy our overseas partners are on the whole human rights thing, it's really not people's refusal to speculate about a remotely distant financial upside that is the problem here."
I’m not sure of your point other than a disliking for the scheme and the tories? Are you agreeing or disagreeing it would be a long term saving? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Is this the same UNHCR that uses Rwanda to house refugees?"
The UNHCR uses strategic resettlement as a tool to help repatriate refugees of Rwandan origin to Rwanda.
It doesn't use Rwanda as the only bin available to dispose of unwanted guests.
Important distinction that I do understand is routinely ignored by those who have an ideological beef with human rights organisations for some mad reason. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 39 weeks ago
Brighton |
Lots of discussion on Rwanda scheme per se but not the £165k private charter?
Now I can see the argument for not putting our Home Sec and senior officials on a commercial flight (sort of, as there is still First Class) but why not use an RAF transporter? It would still attract a cost but nowhere near £165k! Waste of public money again! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I’ve removed the link so hopefully replies will format correctly.
The bill runs into billions and conducting a quick search I think I’ve confused 8 million a day with 8 billion a year. Either way the bill is running into billions a year being spent on people entering the country illegally.
The Rwanda scheme is goi g to cost a lot up front, and if it works will bring savings and stop crossings well into the future.
Right now the media and critics are concentrating the number on day 1 and not being fully transparent in outlining the savings are over a period of time as the scheme reduces the numbers.
Of course people will grasp at the headline of immediate costs, it proves their point but really doesn’t at the same time.
That's not why people are concerned about the upfront cost. I mean it IS a concern given that the scheme has been going typically well for the kinds of schemes this government dreams up - Cleverly is now fronting something he referred to only months ago as a "shitshow" - but it's not because people are stubbornly refusing to admit that there is a slim possibility of a saving at the other end.
If you look at everything that's taken place on this since the start, from the gob-smacking overspend to pictures of Suella cackling like a pissed bridesmaid in front of buildings designed to house helpless and terrified people to revelations of just quite how dodgy our overseas partners are on the whole human rights thing, it's really not people's refusal to speculate about a remotely distant financial upside that is the problem here.
I’m not sure of your point other than a disliking for the scheme and the tories? Are you agreeing or disagreeing it would be a long term saving? "
I'm saying that firstly I don't believe there would be a long-term saving because I think the projections are, basically, lies.
Secondly I'm saying that even if there were, it doesn't justify the frankly barbaric structure or methodology of the scheme. This is not how civilised people should treat their fellow human beings. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Lots of discussion on Rwanda scheme per se but not the £165k private charter?
Now I can see the argument for not putting our Home Sec and senior officials on a commercial flight (sort of, as there is still First Class) but why not use an RAF transporter? It would still attract a cost but nowhere near £165k! Waste of public money again!"
It's a dead cat. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 39 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"
I’ve removed the link so hopefully replies will format correctly.
The bill runs into billions and conducting a quick search I think I’ve confused 8 million a day with 8 billion a year. Either way the bill is running into billions a year being spent on people entering the country illegally.
The Rwanda scheme is goi g to cost a lot up front, and if it works will bring savings and stop crossings well into the future.
Right now the media and critics are concentrating the number on day 1 and not being fully transparent in outlining the savings are over a period of time as the scheme reduces the numbers.
Of course people will grasp at the headline of immediate costs, it proves their point but really doesn’t at the same time.
That's not why people are concerned about the upfront cost. I mean it IS a concern given that the scheme has been going typically well for the kinds of schemes this government dreams up - Cleverly is now fronting something he referred to only months ago as a "shitshow" - but it's not because people are stubbornly refusing to admit that there is a slim possibility of a saving at the other end.
If you look at everything that's taken place on this since the start, from the gob-smacking overspend to pictures of Suella cackling like a pissed bridesmaid in front of buildings designed to house helpless and terrified people to revelations of just quite how dodgy our overseas partners are on the whole human rights thing, it's really not people's refusal to speculate about a remotely distant financial upside that is the problem here.
I’m not sure of your point other than a disliking for the scheme and the tories? Are you agreeing or disagreeing it would be a long term saving?
I'm saying that firstly I don't believe there would be a long-term saving because I think the projections are, basically, lies.
Secondly I'm saying that even if there were, it doesn't justify the frankly barbaric structure or methodology of the scheme. This is not how civilised people should treat their fellow human beings."
As per the first point that is easy to workout, savings are inevitable in cash and life if the crossings stop, like the lorry crossings etc.
2nd point ties back into your reply ref the UNHCR and their refugee project using Rwanda, they do use Rwanda to house and educate refugees from many countries.
They are often relocated to a 3rd country post their time in Rwanda.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
As per the first point that is easy to workout, savings are inevitable in cash and life if the crossings stop, like the lorry crossings etc.
2nd point ties back into your reply ref the UNHCR and their refugee project using Rwanda, they do use Rwanda to house and educate refugees from many countries.
They are often relocated to a 3rd country post their time in Rwanda.
"
"If the crossings stop". That if's doing a lot of heavy lifting, isn't it. Tories have all kinds of ideas about what constitutes a deterrent, and they're never right.
Again, there's a significant difference between what the UNHCR do and what the UK are proposing to do. Alleging they're moral equivalents is either ignorant or dishonest. And again, even if the UNHCR were flying migrants out wholesale to dump them in a concentration camp, that doesn't make it okay to do it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 39 weeks ago
Brighton |
I say this about once a year on here but why not simply process them here?
Build a processing centre (Govt owns plenty of land now HS2 has been cancelled). Build a camp. Not a concentration camp but a closed
community with shop, GP, school, community centre. Have allotments. Have workshops. Those with skills can use them to help cover the cost of housing the while being processed and refresh/practice/learn skills.
They could provide seasonal work too while being processed. This should be aligned with English lessons and help build a CV for when/if asylum claim granted.
The processing centre will create construction jobs initially and facilities management jobs thereafter benefitting local communities.
By working the asylum seekers begin the process of integration.
There’s more, but need to walk the dog! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I say this about once a year on here but why not simply process them here?
Build a processing centre (Govt owns plenty of land now HS2 has been cancelled). Build a camp. Not a concentration camp but a closed
community with shop, GP, school, community centre. Have allotments. Have workshops. Those with skills can use them to help cover the cost of housing the while being processed and refresh/practice/learn skills.
They could provide seasonal work too while being processed. This should be aligned with English lessons and help build a CV for when/if asylum claim granted.
The processing centre will create construction jobs initially and facilities management jobs thereafter benefitting local communities.
By working the asylum seekers begin the process of integration.
There’s more, but need to walk the dog!"
Stick them all in a closed camp? Are you sure you've thought of the backlash guaranteed with that suggestion? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I say this about once a year on here but why not simply process them here?
Build a processing centre (Govt owns plenty of land now HS2 has been cancelled). Build a camp. Not a concentration camp but a closed
community with shop, GP, school, community centre. Have allotments. Have workshops. Those with skills can use them to help cover the cost of housing the while being processed and refresh/practice/learn skills.
They could provide seasonal work too while being processed. This should be aligned with English lessons and help build a CV for when/if asylum claim granted.
The processing centre will create construction jobs initially and facilities management jobs thereafter benefitting local communities.
By working the asylum seekers begin the process of integration.
There’s more, but need to walk the dog!"
The issue there is it sounds like a very good prison.
Much better in fact than the prisons we have here, which are dramatically underfunded and so overcrowded that we're pretty close to a one-in, one-out situation.
What support exists for the current Tory plan is essentially based on a "fuck 'em, they're only foreign, get 'em out now" attitude to migrants, so the idea of taxpayers ponying up to put migrants up domestically in the conditions you describe (even if it were comparatively inexpensive) would send the right into an apoplectic tailspin. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 39 weeks ago
Brighton |
Preston & Feisty, no not a prison or concentration camp, thinking more along the line of a kibbutz (irony not intended).
Figures suggest the majority of asylum seekers are granted asylum I believe? Why not start early integration and create a system that benefits both the asylum seeker and UK?
Have them sign a code of conduct. Break the code and you are out.
Why pay extortionate amounts to house asylum seekers in hotels (although there is a whole other “follow the money” discussion there) when we could create a productive environment?
There is plenty of evidence that most humans need structure in their lives. Normally that is provided by work or education. Provide those opportunities and that labour pays for bed n board along with education (and skills) that benefit the individual.
No reason it cannot be comfortable!
One of the oft reported criticisms of current set up is gangs of male asylum seekers hanging around coastal towns with nothing to do. If they have skills they are going to waste and being unlearned/de-skilled.
Why not have allotments and grow some food? If they produce excess sell it at the “farmers market”!
Start the English lessons in anticipation of a successful granting of asylum. That combined with work experience or up-to-date use of their skills means they are ready to enter the UK workforce and integrate better.
Not just English language lessons either but also societal lessons to teach respect for UK society and culture. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
10,000 long term empty ministry of defence properties empty
I checked the parliamentary briefing which says 95% of MoD housing stock exceeds the decent homes plus standard
Those empty homes are reported to cost the taxpayer £25mllion annually in maintenance.
Why are we paying for hotels while this housing stock lies vacant. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Preston & Feisty, no not a prison or concentration camp, thinking more along the line of a kibbutz (irony not intended).
Figures suggest the majority of asylum seekers are granted asylum I believe? Why not start early integration and create a system that benefits both the asylum seeker and UK?
Have them sign a code of conduct. Break the code and you are out.
Why pay extortionate amounts to house asylum seekers in hotels (although there is a whole other “follow the money” discussion there) when we could create a productive environment?
There is plenty of evidence that most humans need structure in their lives. Normally that is provided by work or education. Provide those opportunities and that labour pays for bed n board along with education (and skills) that benefit the individual.
No reason it cannot be comfortable!
One of the oft reported criticisms of current set up is gangs of male asylum seekers hanging around coastal towns with nothing to do. If they have skills they are going to waste and being unlearned/de-skilled.
Why not have allotments and grow some food? If they produce excess sell it at the “farmers market”!
Start the English lessons in anticipation of a successful granting of asylum. That combined with work experience or up-to-date use of their skills means they are ready to enter the UK workforce and integrate better.
Not just English language lessons either but also societal lessons to teach respect for UK society and culture."
I'm not against the idea per se. However, we already have buildings (army camps), there's no need to have new builds. You know what happened with those. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 39 weeks ago
|
"10,000 long term empty ministry of defence properties empty
I checked the parliamentary briefing which says 95% of MoD housing stock exceeds the decent homes plus standard
Those empty homes are reported to cost the taxpayer £25mllion annually in maintenance.
Why are we paying for hotels while this housing stock lies vacant. "
that was for family dwellings only right ?
And decent was a very low bar irrc the definition correctly. Cant recall what the decent plus definition was. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No one would reasonably argue the situation is good or sustainable. That's not incompatible with questioning the increasingly stupid, ineffective, inhumane and fabulously wasteful Rwanda plan.
What exactly do you think is 'inhumane' about the Rwanda plan?
Sending people to Rwanda.
I encourage you to read up on Rwanda."
So far, no asylum seeker has been sent to Rwanda, because of repeated challenges to the scheme under European and UK laws.
(Guardian 29 Feb 2024)
Notme says the asylum cost to Uk is £8bn, I don’t doubt it
I make that equivalent to £300 cost per uk household |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"10,000 long term empty ministry of defence properties empty
I checked the parliamentary briefing which says 95% of MoD housing stock exceeds the decent homes plus standard
Those empty homes are reported to cost the taxpayer £25mllion annually in maintenance.
Why are we paying for hotels while this housing stock lies vacant. that was for family dwellings only right ?
And decent was a very low bar irrc the definition correctly. Cant recall what the decent plus definition was. "
Family dwellings. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 39 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Preston & Feisty, no not a prison or concentration camp, thinking more along the line of a kibbutz (irony not intended).
Figures suggest the majority of asylum seekers are granted asylum I believe? Why not start early integration and create a system that benefits both the asylum seeker and UK?
Have them sign a code of conduct. Break the code and you are out.
Why pay extortionate amounts to house asylum seekers in hotels (although there is a whole other “follow the money” discussion there) when we could create a productive environment?
There is plenty of evidence that most humans need structure in their lives. Normally that is provided by work or education. Provide those opportunities and that labour pays for bed n board along with education (and skills) that benefit the individual.
No reason it cannot be comfortable!
One of the oft reported criticisms of current set up is gangs of male asylum seekers hanging around coastal towns with nothing to do. If they have skills they are going to waste and being unlearned/de-skilled.
Why not have allotments and grow some food? If they produce excess sell it at the “farmers market”!
Start the English lessons in anticipation of a successful granting of asylum. That combined with work experience or up-to-date use of their skills means they are ready to enter the UK workforce and integrate better.
Not just English language lessons either but also societal lessons to teach respect for UK society and culture.
I'm not against the idea per se. However, we already have buildings (army camps), there's no need to have new builds. You know what happened with those. "
Feisty and 50Shades - yep army barracks may suffice.
There’s always an “ah but” so I guess spending money doing up military estate could attract criticism from the troops as I know the estate is poor in places. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Preston & Feisty, no not a prison or concentration camp, thinking more along the line of a kibbutz (irony not intended).
Figures suggest the majority of asylum seekers are granted asylum I believe? Why not start early integration and create a system that benefits both the asylum seeker and UK?
Have them sign a code of conduct. Break the code and you are out.
Why pay extortionate amounts to house asylum seekers in hotels (although there is a whole other “follow the money” discussion there) when we could create a productive environment?
There is plenty of evidence that most humans need structure in their lives. Normally that is provided by work or education. Provide those opportunities and that labour pays for bed n board along with education (and skills) that benefit the individual.
No reason it cannot be comfortable!
One of the oft reported criticisms of current set up is gangs of male asylum seekers hanging around coastal towns with nothing to do. If they have skills they are going to waste and being unlearned/de-skilled.
Why not have allotments and grow some food? If they produce excess sell it at the “farmers market”!
Start the English lessons in anticipation of a successful granting of asylum. That combined with work experience or up-to-date use of their skills means they are ready to enter the UK workforce and integrate better.
Not just English language lessons either but also societal lessons to teach respect for UK society and culture.
I'm not against the idea per se. However, we already have buildings (army camps), there's no need to have new builds. You know what happened with those.
Feisty and 50Shades - yep army barracks may suffice.
There’s always an “ah but” so I guess spending money doing up military estate could attract criticism from the troops as I know the estate is poor in places."
If doing up military units is required first dibs go to military personal and veterans. That’s who I pay my taxes for. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 39 weeks ago
|
"James Cleverly spent £165,000 on flight to Rwanda to sign deportation deal
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/22/james-cleverly-spent-165000-on-flight-to-rwanda-to-sign-deportation-deal"
that's pretty much the cost of three hotel rooms for a year. (Which maybe should be the new metric) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 39 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Preston & Feisty, no not a prison or concentration camp, thinking more along the line of a kibbutz (irony not intended).
Figures suggest the majority of asylum seekers are granted asylum I believe? Why not start early integration and create a system that benefits both the asylum seeker and UK?
Have them sign a code of conduct. Break the code and you are out.
Why pay extortionate amounts to house asylum seekers in hotels (although there is a whole other “follow the money” discussion there) when we could create a productive environment?
There is plenty of evidence that most humans need structure in their lives. Normally that is provided by work or education. Provide those opportunities and that labour pays for bed n board along with education (and skills) that benefit the individual.
No reason it cannot be comfortable!
One of the oft reported criticisms of current set up is gangs of male asylum seekers hanging around coastal towns with nothing to do. If they have skills they are going to waste and being unlearned/de-skilled.
Why not have allotments and grow some food? If they produce excess sell it at the “farmers market”!
Start the English lessons in anticipation of a successful granting of asylum. That combined with work experience or up-to-date use of their skills means they are ready to enter the UK workforce and integrate better.
Not just English language lessons either but also societal lessons to teach respect for UK society and culture.
I'm not against the idea per se. However, we already have buildings (army camps), there's no need to have new builds. You know what happened with those.
Feisty and 50Shades - yep army barracks may suffice.
There’s always an “ah but” so I guess spending money doing up military estate could attract criticism from the troops as I know the estate is poor in places.
If doing up military units is required first dibs go to military personal and veterans. That’s who I pay my taxes for. "
Actually on further thought…Agreed hence why I was suggesting a specific processing centre to keep the topics separated. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The people elect the politicians who form their Government. The people put pressure on the Government to solve the migrant crisis. Slashing the rubber boats in the midle of the chanel has been ruled out I understand.
The Rwanda plan is the solution put forward by the people's elected government that meets the primary needs of the people.
The Rwanda plan has two key benefits which meets the people's needs. Firstly it reduces the number of migrants in the country. Secondly the concept of being sent to Rwanda should serve to disuade some of the economic migrants.
Where else could we send them where it would meet the people's needs? Benidorm?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Preston & Feisty, no not a prison or concentration camp, thinking more along the line of a kibbutz (irony not intended).
Figures suggest the majority of asylum seekers are granted asylum I believe? Why not start early integration and create a system that benefits both the asylum seeker and UK?
Have them sign a code of conduct. Break the code and you are out.
Why pay extortionate amounts to house asylum seekers in hotels (although there is a whole other “follow the money” discussion there) when we could create a productive environment?
There is plenty of evidence that most humans need structure in their lives. Normally that is provided by work or education. Provide those opportunities and that labour pays for bed n board along with education (and skills) that benefit the individual.
No reason it cannot be comfortable!
One of the oft reported criticisms of current set up is gangs of male asylum seekers hanging around coastal towns with nothing to do. If they have skills they are going to waste and being unlearned/de-skilled.
Why not have allotments and grow some food? If they produce excess sell it at the “farmers market”!
Start the English lessons in anticipation of a successful granting of asylum. That combined with work experience or up-to-date use of their skills means they are ready to enter the UK workforce and integrate better.
Not just English language lessons either but also societal lessons to teach respect for UK society and culture."
Agree with most of you points but if the majorities do in deed get granted asylum wound it not be safer and cheaper to deck out an lodge cruise ship where you could house them for a journey from EU to UK. Do a 3d scan same as the post office use when you get a new passport and give them a NI number when they disembark they are free to work and make a life. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Preston & Feisty, no not a prison or concentration camp, thinking more along the line of a kibbutz (irony not intended).
Figures suggest the majority of asylum seekers are granted asylum I believe? Why not start early integration and create a system that benefits both the asylum seeker and UK?
Have them sign a code of conduct. Break the code and you are out.
Why pay extortionate amounts to house asylum seekers in hotels (although there is a whole other “follow the money” discussion there) when we could create a productive environment?
There is plenty of evidence that most humans need structure in their lives. Normally that is provided by work or education. Provide those opportunities and that labour pays for bed n board along with education (and skills) that benefit the individual.
No reason it cannot be comfortable!
One of the oft reported criticisms of current set up is gangs of male asylum seekers hanging around coastal towns with nothing to do. If they have skills they are going to waste and being unlearned/de-skilled.
Why not have allotments and grow some food? If they produce excess sell it at the “farmers market”!
Start the English lessons in anticipation of a successful granting of asylum. That combined with work experience or up-to-date use of their skills means they are ready to enter the UK workforce and integrate better.
Not just English language lessons either but also societal lessons to teach respect for UK society and culture.
Agree with most of you points but if the majorities do in deed get granted asylum wound it not be safer and cheaper to deck out an lodge cruise ship where you could house them for a journey from EU to UK. Do a 3d scan same as the post office use when you get a new passport and give them a NI number when they disembark they are free to work and make a life. "
This would stop the small boat crossings and reduce the cost to the taxpayers. It might also in the process mean by giving less not as meany want to come so stay in the EU |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 39 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Preston & Feisty, no not a prison or concentration camp, thinking more along the line of a kibbutz (irony not intended).
Figures suggest the majority of asylum seekers are granted asylum I believe? Why not start early integration and create a system that benefits both the asylum seeker and UK?
Have them sign a code of conduct. Break the code and you are out.
Why pay extortionate amounts to house asylum seekers in hotels (although there is a whole other “follow the money” discussion there) when we could create a productive environment?
There is plenty of evidence that most humans need structure in their lives. Normally that is provided by work or education. Provide those opportunities and that labour pays for bed n board along with education (and skills) that benefit the individual.
No reason it cannot be comfortable!
One of the oft reported criticisms of current set up is gangs of male asylum seekers hanging around coastal towns with nothing to do. If they have skills they are going to waste and being unlearned/de-skilled.
Why not have allotments and grow some food? If they produce excess sell it at the “farmers market”!
Start the English lessons in anticipation of a successful granting of asylum. That combined with work experience or up-to-date use of their skills means they are ready to enter the UK workforce and integrate better.
Not just English language lessons either but also societal lessons to teach respect for UK society and culture.
Agree with most of you points but if the majorities do in deed get granted asylum wound it not be safer and cheaper to deck out an lodge cruise ship where you could house them for a journey from EU to UK. Do a 3d scan same as the post office use when you get a new passport and give them a NI number when they disembark they are free to work and make a life. "
Urm how long on the cruise ship? Where is it collecting these people from? The asylum process appears to take months and all the while more people are being added. Not sure how practical your suggestion is (or I am being dumb and missing your point)? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And UK will pay at least £370m to Rwanda as part of this plan to relocate asylum seekers
The cost of the legal work and challenges.
Add £2bn a year supporting those here and the 215,000 asylum cases on home office claim list and the lawyers, courts, appeals etc
This dwarfs what’s being asked by our junior doctors for pay catch up.
The yearly bill for housing, clothing and feeding those who make the illegal crossing into the country is approximately £8 billion, that does not go away, add to this what the doctors want and you can now hopefully understand why something needs to be done to resolve the issue?
"
Why doesn't the government just invest a couple of quid to process the claims quicker. Those who have a genuine claim can crack on working and paying taxes.
Win/win.
Unless of course they want to keep this going because someone somewhere is making "£8 billion". And of course it's a very useful distraction tactic 'look at those people in that small boat over there'. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 39 weeks ago
Brighton |
"And UK will pay at least £370m to Rwanda as part of this plan to relocate asylum seekers
The cost of the legal work and challenges.
Add £2bn a year supporting those here and the 215,000 asylum cases on home office claim list and the lawyers, courts, appeals etc
This dwarfs what’s being asked by our junior doctors for pay catch up.
The yearly bill for housing, clothing and feeding those who make the illegal crossing into the country is approximately £8 billion, that does not go away, add to this what the doctors want and you can now hopefully understand why something needs to be done to resolve the issue?
Why doesn't the government just invest a couple of quid to process the claims quicker. Those who have a genuine claim can crack on working and paying taxes.
Win/win.
Unless of course they want to keep this going because someone somewhere is making "£8 billion". And of course it's a very useful distraction tactic 'look at those people in that small boat over there'."
Always follow the money! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Preston & Feisty, no not a prison or concentration camp, thinking more along the line of a kibbutz (irony not intended).
Figures suggest the majority of asylum seekers are granted asylum I believe? Why not start early integration and create a system that benefits both the asylum seeker and UK?
Have them sign a code of conduct. Break the code and you are out.
Why pay extortionate amounts to house asylum seekers in hotels (although there is a whole other “follow the money” discussion there) when we could create a productive environment?
There is plenty of evidence that most humans need structure in their lives. Normally that is provided by work or education. Provide those opportunities and that labour pays for bed n board along with education (and skills) that benefit the individual.
No reason it cannot be comfortable!
One of the oft reported criticisms of current set up is gangs of male asylum seekers hanging around coastal towns with nothing to do. If they have skills they are going to waste and being unlearned/de-skilled.
Why not have allotments and grow some food? If they produce excess sell it at the “farmers market”!
Start the English lessons in anticipation of a successful granting of asylum. That combined with work experience or up-to-date use of their skills means they are ready to enter the UK workforce and integrate better.
Not just English language lessons either but also societal lessons to teach respect for UK society and culture.
Agree with most of you points but if the majorities do in deed get granted asylum wound it not be safer and cheaper to deck out an lodge cruise ship where you could house them for a journey from EU to UK. Do a 3d scan same as the post office use when you get a new passport and give them a NI number when they disembark they are free to work and make a life.
Urm how long on the cruise ship? Where is it collecting these people from? The asylum process appears to take months and all the while more people are being added. Not sure how practical your suggestion is (or I am being dumb and missing your point)?"
How long dose it take to get a passport in the post office 30 minutes or less.
As said pick up in EU wherever they are. France Spain Greace..
But stop the small boats. Is key
This would not be an asylum process it would just be an ID process and giving of an NI number so people can work hear.
As you said most get granted any way agree they sign a promise that if found guilty of a crime is bad to where they came from..
Guess the biggest challenge is language..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And UK will pay at least £370m to Rwanda as part of this plan to relocate asylum seekers
The cost of the legal work and challenges.
Add £2bn a year supporting those here and the 215,000 asylum cases on home office claim list and the lawyers, courts, appeals etc
This dwarfs what’s being asked by our junior doctors for pay catch up.
The yearly bill for housing, clothing and feeding those who make the illegal crossing into the country is approximately £8 billion, that does not go away, add to this what the doctors want and you can now hopefully understand why something needs to be done to resolve the issue?
Why doesn't the government just invest a couple of quid to process the claims quicker. Those who have a genuine claim can crack on working and paying taxes.
Win/win.
Unless of course they want to keep this going because someone somewhere is making "£8 billion". And of course it's a very useful distraction tactic 'look at those people in that small boat over there'."
This dose does not stop the small boats..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And UK will pay at least £370m to Rwanda as part of this plan to relocate asylum seekers
The cost of the legal work and challenges.
Add £2bn a year supporting those here and the 215,000 asylum cases on home office claim list and the lawyers, courts, appeals etc
This dwarfs what’s being asked by our junior doctors for pay catch up.
The yearly bill for housing, clothing and feeding those who make the illegal crossing into the country is approximately £8 billion, that does not go away, add to this what the doctors want and you can now hopefully understand why something needs to be done to resolve the issue?
Why doesn't the government just invest a couple of quid to process the claims quicker. Those who have a genuine claim can crack on working and paying taxes.
Win/win.
Unless of course they want to keep this going because someone somewhere is making "£8 billion". And of course it's a very useful distraction tactic 'look at those people in that small boat over there'.
This dose does not stop the small boats..
"
I thought the problem was the £8 million?
Spunking millions on a scheme to rile up Daily Mail readers by trafficking humans to Rwanda isn't solving any problems, except maybe the loss of Tory voters to Reform. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And UK will pay at least £370m to Rwanda as part of this plan to relocate asylum seekers
The cost of the legal work and challenges.
Add £2bn a year supporting those here and the 215,000 asylum cases on home office claim list and the lawyers, courts, appeals etc
This dwarfs what’s being asked by our junior doctors for pay catch up.
The yearly bill for housing, clothing and feeding those who make the illegal crossing into the country is approximately £8 billion, that does not go away, add to this what the doctors want and you can now hopefully understand why something needs to be done to resolve the issue?
Why doesn't the government just invest a couple of quid to process the claims quicker. Those who have a genuine claim can crack on working and paying taxes.
Win/win.
Unless of course they want to keep this going because someone somewhere is making "£8 billion". And of course it's a very useful distraction tactic 'look at those people in that small boat over there'.
This dose does not stop the small boats..
I thought the problem was the £8 million?
Spunking millions on a scheme to rile up Daily Mail readers by trafficking humans to Rwanda isn't solving any problems, except maybe the loss of Tory voters to Reform."
*Billion |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I’ve removed the link so hopefully replies will format correctly.
The bill runs into billions and conducting a quick search I think I’ve confused 8 million a day with 8 billion a year. Either way the bill is running into billions a year being spent on people entering the country illegally.
The Rwanda scheme is goi g to cost a lot up front, and if it works will bring savings and stop crossings well into the future.
Right now the media and critics are concentrating the number on day 1 and not being fully transparent in outlining the savings are over a period of time as the scheme reduces the numbers.
Of course people will grasp at the headline of immediate costs, it proves their point but really doesn’t at the same time.
That's not why people are concerned about the upfront cost. I mean it IS a concern given that the scheme has been going typically well for the kinds of schemes this government dreams up - Cleverly is now fronting something he referred to only months ago as a "shitshow" - but it's not because people are stubbornly refusing to admit that there is a slim possibility of a saving at the other end.
If you look at everything that's taken place on this since the start, from the gob-smacking overspend to pictures of Suella cackling like a pissed bridesmaid in front of buildings designed to house helpless and terrified people to revelations of just quite how dodgy our overseas partners are on the whole human rights thing, it's really not people's refusal to speculate about a remotely distant financial upside that is the problem here.
I’m not sure of your point other than a disliking for the scheme and the tories? Are you agreeing or disagreeing it would be a long term saving? "
The chance of this scheme ever creating any savings are less than us ever seeing those sunlit uplands and unicorns of brexit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I’ve removed the link so hopefully replies will format correctly.
The bill runs into billions and conducting a quick search I think I’ve confused 8 million a day with 8 billion a year. Either way the bill is running into billions a year being spent on people entering the country illegally.
The Rwanda scheme is goi g to cost a lot up front, and if it works will bring savings and stop crossings well into the future.
Right now the media and critics are concentrating the number on day 1 and not being fully transparent in outlining the savings are over a period of time as the scheme reduces the numbers.
Of course people will grasp at the headline of immediate costs, it proves their point but really doesn’t at the same time.
That's not why people are concerned about the upfront cost. I mean it IS a concern given that the scheme has been going typically well for the kinds of schemes this government dreams up - Cleverly is now fronting something he referred to only months ago as a "shitshow" - but it's not because people are stubbornly refusing to admit that there is a slim possibility of a saving at the other end.
If you look at everything that's taken place on this since the start, from the gob-smacking overspend to pictures of Suella cackling like a pissed bridesmaid in front of buildings designed to house helpless and terrified people to revelations of just quite how dodgy our overseas partners are on the whole human rights thing, it's really not people's refusal to speculate about a remotely distant financial upside that is the problem here.
I’m not sure of your point other than a disliking for the scheme and the tories? Are you agreeing or disagreeing it would be a long term saving?
The chance of this scheme ever creating any savings are less than us ever seeing those sunlit uplands and unicorns of brexit. "
Yer think we all know it's a lost cause and the current government just don't want to back out now they are in to deep.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I’ve removed the link so hopefully replies will format correctly.
The bill runs into billions and conducting a quick search I think I’ve confused 8 million a day with 8 billion a year. Either way the bill is running into billions a year being spent on people entering the country illegally.
The Rwanda scheme is goi g to cost a lot up front, and if it works will bring savings and stop crossings well into the future.
Right now the media and critics are concentrating the number on day 1 and not being fully transparent in outlining the savings are over a period of time as the scheme reduces the numbers.
Of course people will grasp at the headline of immediate costs, it proves their point but really doesn’t at the same time.
That's not why people are concerned about the upfront cost. I mean it IS a concern given that the scheme has been going typically well for the kinds of schemes this government dreams up - Cleverly is now fronting something he referred to only months ago as a "shitshow" - but it's not because people are stubbornly refusing to admit that there is a slim possibility of a saving at the other end.
If you look at everything that's taken place on this since the start, from the gob-smacking overspend to pictures of Suella cackling like a pissed bridesmaid in front of buildings designed to house helpless and terrified people to revelations of just quite how dodgy our overseas partners are on the whole human rights thing, it's really not people's refusal to speculate about a remotely distant financial upside that is the problem here.
I’m not sure of your point other than a disliking for the scheme and the tories? Are you agreeing or disagreeing it would be a long term saving?
The chance of this scheme ever creating any savings are less than us ever seeing those sunlit uplands and unicorns of brexit.
Yer think we all know it's a lost cause and the current government just don't want to back out now they are in to deep.."
Or they just don't give a fuck about it. It's just to garner support from those who hate foreigners. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
