Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rwanda have come out and said if you can't get your act together you can have your money back just either get on with it in a way that is legal or here's your money back and leave us out of it. On Rwanda, this has been said before but I'm putting some numbers on it The Court of Appeal has made it clear that the Rwanda scheme only has room for 100 people https://fullfact.org/news/keir-starmer-rwanda-capacity/ Government says that that's OK because the Rwanda scheme is a deterrent to stop people crossing the channel. However, 200 migrants have died crossing the channel https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/people-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/ So for the government deterrent to work, you would have to believe that migrants are more afraid of being sent to Rwanda than they are of the greater risk of drowning in the freezing cold waters of the English channel. Assuming that you agree a horrible death at sea is a worse fate than being housed in an asylum centre in Rwanda, that means that deterrent of Rwanda adds nothing to the greater, naturally existing deterrent of death at sea. Therefore it has no value as a deterrent. If it has no value of a deterrent, all it does is take 100 migrants out of Britain. There have been 111,588 illegal crossings of the English channel since 2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Channel_migrant_crossings_(2018–present) That means there are 111,588 migrants that the UK has to assess and deal with one war or another. If the Rwanda scheme was fully operational, there would be 111,488 migrants for the UK to deal with. For this we have paid £400m. " 200 deaths is about .17%. And that’s just the number of crossings we actually know about. Who knows who is landing on our shores every day unchecked. Obviously a risk your Nikes, leather jacket and iPhone 15 might get wet too I guess. But still pretty good odds for a life on benefits, nice hotel room, medical and dental treatment and some free cinema tickets. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rwanda have come out and said if you can't get your act together you can have your money back just either get on with it in a way that is legal or here's your money back and leave us out of it. On Rwanda, this has been said before but I'm putting some numbers on it The Court of Appeal has made it clear that the Rwanda scheme only has room for 100 people https://fullfact.org/news/keir-starmer-rwanda-capacity/ Government says that that's OK because the Rwanda scheme is a deterrent to stop people crossing the channel. However, 200 migrants have died crossing the channel https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/people-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/ So for the government deterrent to work, you would have to believe that migrants are more afraid of being sent to Rwanda than they are of the greater risk of drowning in the freezing cold waters of the English channel. Assuming that you agree a horrible death at sea is a worse fate than being housed in an asylum centre in Rwanda, that means that deterrent of Rwanda adds nothing to the greater, naturally existing deterrent of death at sea. Therefore it has no value as a deterrent. If it has no value of a deterrent, all it does is take 100 migrants out of Britain. There have been 111,588 illegal crossings of the English channel since 2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Channel_migrant_crossings_(2018–present) That means there are 111,588 migrants that the UK has to assess and deal with one war or another. If the Rwanda scheme was fully operational, there would be 111,488 migrants for the UK to deal with. For this we have paid £400m. " You need to get your facts checked again, but that wouldn't get your blood boiling would it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rwanda have come out and said if you can't get your act together you can have your money back just either get on with it in a way that is legal or here's your money back and leave us out of it." Didn't someone post this a few weeks ago, only for it to turn out to be completely untrue? "Government says that that's OK because the Rwanda scheme is a deterrent to stop people crossing the channel. However, 200 migrants have died crossing the channel So for the government deterrent to work, you would have to believe that migrants are more afraid of being sent to Rwanda than they are of the greater risk of drowning in the freezing cold waters of the English channel. Assuming that you agree a horrible death at sea is a worse fate than being housed in an asylum centre in Rwanda, that means that deterrent of Rwanda adds nothing to the greater, naturally existing deterrent of death at sea. Therefore it has no value as a deterrent." That's not how it works. Most of the people in small boats have never been to sea before and have no idea how dangerous the English Channel can be. To them, the risk of dying is tiny. What the Rwanda scheme does is to 'take away the prize'. A tiny risk of dying is worth it if you can get to a rich country and find work. It's not worth taking that risk to end up in Rwanda. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rwanda have come out and said if you can't get your act together you can have your money back just either get on with it in a way that is legal or here's your money back and leave us out of it. Didn't someone post this a few weeks ago, only for it to turn out to be completely untrue? Government says that that's OK because the Rwanda scheme is a deterrent to stop people crossing the channel. However, 200 migrants have died crossing the channel So for the government deterrent to work, you would have to believe that migrants are more afraid of being sent to Rwanda than they are of the greater risk of drowning in the freezing cold waters of the English channel. Assuming that you agree a horrible death at sea is a worse fate than being housed in an asylum centre in Rwanda, that means that deterrent of Rwanda adds nothing to the greater, naturally existing deterrent of death at sea. Therefore it has no value as a deterrent. That's not how it works. Most of the people in small boats have never been to sea before and have no idea how dangerous the English Channel can be. To them, the risk of dying is tiny. What the Rwanda scheme does is to 'take away the prize'. A tiny risk of dying is worth it if you can get to a rich country and find work. It's not worth taking that risk to end up in Rwanda. " I dont think many will know about rwanda,do you ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"a friend has told me that as part of the deal rwanda can send imigrants to the uk ,can anyone clear this up thanks" Yes, cleared up  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"a friend has told me that as part of the deal rwanda can send imigrants to the uk ,can anyone clear this up thanks" refugees irrc. Not clear what the ratio is tho. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"a friend has told me that as part of the deal rwanda can send imigrants to the uk ,can anyone clear this up thanks Yes, cleared up "Cheers | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"a friend has told me that as part of the deal rwanda can send imigrants to the uk ,can anyone clear this up thanksrefugees irrc. Not clear what the ratio is tho. " Cheers | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rwanda have come out and said if you can't get your act together you can have your money back just either get on with it in a way that is legal or here's your money back and leave us out of it. On Rwanda, this has been said before but I'm putting some numbers on it The Court of Appeal has made it clear that the Rwanda scheme only has room for 100 people https://fullfact.org/news/keir-starmer-rwanda-capacity/ Government says that that's OK because the Rwanda scheme is a deterrent to stop people crossing the channel. However, 200 migrants have died crossing the channel https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/people-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/ So for the government deterrent to work, you would have to believe that migrants are more afraid of being sent to Rwanda than they are of the greater risk of drowning in the freezing cold waters of the English channel. Assuming that you agree a horrible death at sea is a worse fate than being housed in an asylum centre in Rwanda, that means that deterrent of Rwanda adds nothing to the greater, naturally existing deterrent of death at sea. Therefore it has no value as a deterrent. If it has no value of a deterrent, all it does is take 100 migrants out of Britain. There have been 111,588 illegal crossings of the English channel since 2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Channel_migrant_crossings_(2018–present) That means there are 111,588 migrants that the UK has to assess and deal with one war or another. If the Rwanda scheme was fully operational, there would be 111,488 migrants for the UK to deal with. For this we have paid £400m. You need to get your facts checked again, but that wouldn't get your blood boiling would it? " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rwanda have come out and said if you can't get your act together you can have your money back just either get on with it in a way that is legal or here's your money back and leave us out of it. Didn't someone post this a few weeks ago, only for it to turn out to be completely untrue? Government says that that's OK because the Rwanda scheme is a deterrent to stop people crossing the channel. However, 200 migrants have died crossing the channel So for the government deterrent to work, you would have to believe that migrants are more afraid of being sent to Rwanda than they are of the greater risk of drowning in the freezing cold waters of the English channel. Assuming that you agree a horrible death at sea is a worse fate than being housed in an asylum centre in Rwanda, that means that deterrent of Rwanda adds nothing to the greater, naturally existing deterrent of death at sea. Therefore it has no value as a deterrent. That's not how it works. Most of the people in small boats have never been to sea before and have no idea how dangerous the English Channel can be. To them, the risk of dying is tiny. What the Rwanda scheme does is to 'take away the prize'. A tiny risk of dying is worth it if you can get to a rich country and find work. It's not worth taking that risk to end up in Rwanda. " The taking away the prize is basically how I understand the deterrent factor in this policy. To me it's not rational to trek all the way to France, pay criminals thousands of pounds for an extremely dangerous trip only to be flown to Rwanda. However I think it will rely on being able to send most arrival to Rwanda not just a few otherwise the odds are back in favour of risking the trip. As before I fear its going back to the courts | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rwanda have come out and said if you can't get your act together you can have your money back just either get on with it in a way that is legal or here's your money back and leave us out of it. Didn't someone post this a few weeks ago, only for it to turn out to be completely untrue? Government says that that's OK because the Rwanda scheme is a deterrent to stop people crossing the channel. However, 200 migrants have died crossing the channel So for the government deterrent to work, you would have to believe that migrants are more afraid of being sent to Rwanda than they are of the greater risk of drowning in the freezing cold waters of the English channel. Assuming that you agree a horrible death at sea is a worse fate than being housed in an asylum centre in Rwanda, that means that deterrent of Rwanda adds nothing to the greater, naturally existing deterrent of death at sea. Therefore it has no value as a deterrent. That's not how it works. Most of the people in small boats have never been to sea before and have no idea how dangerous the English Channel can be. To them, the risk of dying is tiny. What the Rwanda scheme does is to 'take away the prize'. A tiny risk of dying is worth it if you can get to a rich country and find work. It's not worth taking that risk to end up in Rwanda. The taking away the prize is basically how I understand the deterrent factor in this policy. To me it's not rational to trek all the way to France, pay criminals thousands of pounds for an extremely dangerous trip only to be flown to Rwanda. However I think it will rely on being able to send most arrival to Rwanda not just a few otherwise the odds are back in favour of risking the trip. As before I fear its going back to the courts" this all assumes that people who don't know the sea is dangerous know that the UK have a scheme with Rwanda! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rwanda have come out and said if you can't get your act together you can have your money back just either get on with it in a way that is legal or here's your money back and leave us out of it. Didn't someone post this a few weeks ago, only for it to turn out to be completely untrue? Government says that that's OK because the Rwanda scheme is a deterrent to stop people crossing the channel. However, 200 migrants have died crossing the channel So for the government deterrent to work, you would have to believe that migrants are more afraid of being sent to Rwanda than they are of the greater risk of drowning in the freezing cold waters of the English channel. Assuming that you agree a horrible death at sea is a worse fate than being housed in an asylum centre in Rwanda, that means that deterrent of Rwanda adds nothing to the greater, naturally existing deterrent of death at sea. Therefore it has no value as a deterrent. That's not how it works. Most of the people in small boats have never been to sea before and have no idea how dangerous the English Channel can be. To them, the risk of dying is tiny. What the Rwanda scheme does is to 'take away the prize'. A tiny risk of dying is worth it if you can get to a rich country and find work. It's not worth taking that risk to end up in Rwanda. The taking away the prize is basically how I understand the deterrent factor in this policy. To me it's not rational to trek all the way to France, pay criminals thousands of pounds for an extremely dangerous trip only to be flown to Rwanda. However I think it will rely on being able to send most arrival to Rwanda not just a few otherwise the odds are back in favour of risking the trip. As before I fear its going back to the courtsthis all assumes that people who don't know the sea is dangerous know that the UK have a scheme with Rwanda!" I think that is the idea, if the scheme is given the green light they will promote the consequences of making the trip over the channel being a longer trip to Rwanda. Italy and Greece played hardball at some point last year and their crossings dropped massively, not necessarily because migrants didn’t want to go there, because those making the money through trafficking knew they were going to lose the route and reputation | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rwanda have come out and said if you can't get your act together you can have your money back just either get on with it in a way that is legal or here's your money back and leave us out of it. Didn't someone post this a few weeks ago, only for it to turn out to be completely untrue? Government says that that's OK because the Rwanda scheme is a deterrent to stop people crossing the channel. However, 200 migrants have died crossing the channel So for the government deterrent to work, you would have to believe that migrants are more afraid of being sent to Rwanda than they are of the greater risk of drowning in the freezing cold waters of the English channel. Assuming that you agree a horrible death at sea is a worse fate than being housed in an asylum centre in Rwanda, that means that deterrent of Rwanda adds nothing to the greater, naturally existing deterrent of death at sea. Therefore it has no value as a deterrent. That's not how it works. Most of the people in small boats have never been to sea before and have no idea how dangerous the English Channel can be. To them, the risk of dying is tiny. What the Rwanda scheme does is to 'take away the prize'. A tiny risk of dying is worth it if you can get to a rich country and find work. It's not worth taking that risk to end up in Rwanda. The taking away the prize is basically how I understand the deterrent factor in this policy. To me it's not rational to trek all the way to France, pay criminals thousands of pounds for an extremely dangerous trip only to be flown to Rwanda. However I think it will rely on being able to send most arrival to Rwanda not just a few otherwise the odds are back in favour of risking the trip. As before I fear its going back to the courtsthis all assumes that people who don't know the sea is dangerous know that the UK have a scheme with Rwanda! I think that is the idea, if the scheme is given the green light they will promote the consequences of making the trip over the channel being a longer trip to Rwanda. Italy and Greece played hardball at some point last year and their crossings dropped massively, not necessarily because migrants didn’t want to go there, because those making the money through trafficking knew they were going to lose the route and reputation " i know you said half way through the year but... 2023 looks like record numbers for Italy. Maybe they dropped from record levels to "normal" in the latter part of the year. Hard to work out with seasonal numbers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rwanda have come out and said if you can't get your act together you can have your money back just either get on with it in a way that is legal or here's your money back and leave us out of it. Didn't someone post this a few weeks ago, only for it to turn out to be completely untrue? Government says that that's OK because the Rwanda scheme is a deterrent to stop people crossing the channel. However, 200 migrants have died crossing the channel So for the government deterrent to work, you would have to believe that migrants are more afraid of being sent to Rwanda than they are of the greater risk of drowning in the freezing cold waters of the English channel. Assuming that you agree a horrible death at sea is a worse fate than being housed in an asylum centre in Rwanda, that means that deterrent of Rwanda adds nothing to the greater, naturally existing deterrent of death at sea. Therefore it has no value as a deterrent. That's not how it works. Most of the people in small boats have never been to sea before and have no idea how dangerous the English Channel can be. To them, the risk of dying is tiny. What the Rwanda scheme does is to 'take away the prize'. A tiny risk of dying is worth it if you can get to a rich country and find work. It's not worth taking that risk to end up in Rwanda. The taking away the prize is basically how I understand the deterrent factor in this policy. To me it's not rational to trek all the way to France, pay criminals thousands of pounds for an extremely dangerous trip only to be flown to Rwanda. However I think it will rely on being able to send most arrival to Rwanda not just a few otherwise the odds are back in favour of risking the trip. As before I fear its going back to the courtsthis all assumes that people who don't know the sea is dangerous know that the UK have a scheme with Rwanda! I think that is the idea, if the scheme is given the green light they will promote the consequences of making the trip over the channel being a longer trip to Rwanda. Italy and Greece played hardball at some point last year and their crossings dropped massively, not necessarily because migrants didn’t want to go there, because those making the money through trafficking knew they were going to lose the route and reputation i know you said half way through the year but... 2023 looks like record numbers for Italy. Maybe they dropped from record levels to "normal" in the latter part of the year. Hard to work out with seasonal numbers. " You are correct, I got that the wrong way! Tunisia cracked down on the migrants pushing them into Libya and then onto Italy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rwanda have come out and said if you can't get your act together you can have your money back just either get on with it in a way that is legal or here's your money back and leave us out of it. Didn't someone post this a few weeks ago, only for it to turn out to be completely untrue? Government says that that's OK because the Rwanda scheme is a deterrent to stop people crossing the channel. However, 200 migrants have died crossing the channel So for the government deterrent to work, you would have to believe that migrants are more afraid of being sent to Rwanda than they are of the greater risk of drowning in the freezing cold waters of the English channel. Assuming that you agree a horrible death at sea is a worse fate than being housed in an asylum centre in Rwanda, that means that deterrent of Rwanda adds nothing to the greater, naturally existing deterrent of death at sea. Therefore it has no value as a deterrent. That's not how it works. Most of the people in small boats have never been to sea before and have no idea how dangerous the English Channel can be. To them, the risk of dying is tiny. What the Rwanda scheme does is to 'take away the prize'. A tiny risk of dying is worth it if you can get to a rich country and find work. It's not worth taking that risk to end up in Rwanda. The taking away the prize is basically how I understand the deterrent factor in this policy. To me it's not rational to trek all the way to France, pay criminals thousands of pounds for an extremely dangerous trip only to be flown to Rwanda. However I think it will rely on being able to send most arrival to Rwanda not just a few otherwise the odds are back in favour of risking the trip. As before I fear its going back to the courtsthis all assumes that people who don't know the sea is dangerous know that the UK have a scheme with Rwanda!" Although some may not realise the dangers I would not suggest they are not intelligent enough to work it out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rwanda have come out and said if you can't get your act together you can have your money back just either get on with it in a way that is legal or here's your money back and leave us out of it. Didn't someone post this a few weeks ago, only for it to turn out to be completely untrue? Government says that that's OK because the Rwanda scheme is a deterrent to stop people crossing the channel. However, 200 migrants have died crossing the channel So for the government deterrent to work, you would have to believe that migrants are more afraid of being sent to Rwanda than they are of the greater risk of drowning in the freezing cold waters of the English channel. Assuming that you agree a horrible death at sea is a worse fate than being housed in an asylum centre in Rwanda, that means that deterrent of Rwanda adds nothing to the greater, naturally existing deterrent of death at sea. Therefore it has no value as a deterrent. That's not how it works. Most of the people in small boats have never been to sea before and have no idea how dangerous the English Channel can be. To them, the risk of dying is tiny. What the Rwanda scheme does is to 'take away the prize'. A tiny risk of dying is worth it if you can get to a rich country and find work. It's not worth taking that risk to end up in Rwanda. The taking away the prize is basically how I understand the deterrent factor in this policy. To me it's not rational to trek all the way to France, pay criminals thousands of pounds for an extremely dangerous trip only to be flown to Rwanda. However I think it will rely on being able to send most arrival to Rwanda not just a few otherwise the odds are back in favour of risking the trip. As before I fear its going back to the courtsthis all assumes that people who don't know the sea is dangerous know that the UK have a scheme with Rwanda! I think that is the idea, if the scheme is given the green light they will promote the consequences of making the trip over the channel being a longer trip to Rwanda. Italy and Greece played hardball at some point last year and their crossings dropped massively, not necessarily because migrants didn’t want to go there, because those making the money through trafficking knew they were going to lose the route and reputation i know you said half way through the year but... 2023 looks like record numbers for Italy. Maybe they dropped from record levels to "normal" in the latter part of the year. Hard to work out with seasonal numbers. You are correct, I got that the wrong way! Tunisia cracked down on the migrants pushing them into Libya and then onto Italy " just reading. That's super hard ball. I await that to be tory polciy ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Loving that people are doing the old mental gymnastics that people will not be aware of drowning as a cause of death, but will be aware of the Rwanda policy so that takes away the prize. Absolute insanity. Rwanda saying we can have our money back is true. Think of all the things going wrong in the country that need attention and the amount of bandwidth, money and energy this has taken. Only to get 100 less people in and then take a hundred from Rwanda in return. The conservatives are now polling (although it's just one poll today) lower than truss time. They are done. Absolutely done. " Hope so, but then again the Tory PR machine will claw them back into the race when the election time comes. And even if we get Labour, they're pretty much ditching any policies that will bring any meaningful change. I am pessimistic about any positive outcome. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Loving that people are doing the old mental gymnastics that people will not be aware of drowning as a cause of death, but will be aware of the Rwanda policy so that takes away the prize. Absolute insanity." You should contact the RNLI and ask them how many members of the public they have to rescue from sea after they set out with wildly inadequate equipment. We're an island nation, and still hundreds of people have to be rescued from their own incompetence every year. People coming from Africa will have little experience of the sea. Those that do, will only know the friendly warm sea of their homeland. They will have no idea of what hypothermia is, or how quickly it can set in. They will also have no clue of the amount, or physical size, of the traffic in the English Channel. What economic migrants will know is that the UK is a land of opportunity, having been told that by their friends and relatives who have made the journey beforehand. If they get shipped off to Rwanda, they'll soon tell their friends how awful life is, and that story will get spread around. Obviously, that last part doesn't apply to genuine asylum seekers, but the policy isn't trying to discourage that sort. "Rwanda saying we can have our money back is true." Care to give us a link to a news story, so that we can all see how true it is? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Loving that people are doing the old mental gymnastics that people will not be aware of drowning as a cause of death, but will be aware of the Rwanda policy so that takes away the prize. Absolute insanity. You should contact the RNLI and ask them how many members of the public they have to rescue from sea after they set out with wildly inadequate equipment. We're an island nation, and still hundreds of people have to be rescued from their own incompetence every year. People coming from Africa will have little experience of the sea. Those that do, will only know the friendly warm sea of their homeland. They will have no idea of what hypothermia is, or how quickly it can set in. They will also have no clue of the amount, or physical size, of the traffic in the English Channel. What economic migrants will know is that the UK is a land of opportunity, having been told that by their friends and relatives who have made the journey beforehand. If they get shipped off to Rwanda, they'll soon tell their friends how awful life is, and that story will get spread around. Obviously, that last part doesn't apply to genuine asylum seekers, but the policy isn't trying to discourage that sort. Rwanda saying we can have our money back is true. Care to give us a link to a news story, so that we can all see how true it is?" BBC News - Rwandan president Paul Kagame suggests UK could get money back https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68007463 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Loving that people are doing the old mental gymnastics that people will not be aware of drowning as a cause of death, but will be aware of the Rwanda policy so that takes away the prize. Absolute insanity. You should contact the RNLI and ask them how many members of the public they have to rescue from sea after they set out with wildly inadequate equipment. We're an island nation, and still hundreds of people have to be rescued from their own incompetence every year. People coming from Africa will have little experience of the sea. Those that do, will only know the friendly warm sea of their homeland. They will have no idea of what hypothermia is, or how quickly it can set in. They will also have no clue of the amount, or physical size, of the traffic in the English Channel. What economic migrants will know is that the UK is a land of opportunity, having been told that by their friends and relatives who have made the journey beforehand. If they get shipped off to Rwanda, they'll soon tell their friends how awful life is, and that story will get spread around. Obviously, that last part doesn't apply to genuine asylum seekers, but the policy isn't trying to discourage that sort. Rwanda saying we can have our money back is true. Care to give us a link to a news story, so that we can all see how true it is?" you seem to imply that it's African crossers that are economic migrants, was that the intention? And are we extending that to anyone who comes via Africa such as Middle East. And if so, how did these folk get into Europe to start with ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Loving that people are doing the old mental gymnastics that people will not be aware of drowning as a cause of death, but will be aware of the Rwanda policy so that takes away the prize. Absolute insanity." "You should contact the RNLI and ask them how many members of the public they have to rescue from sea after they set out with wildly inadequate equipment. We're an island nation, and still hundreds of people have to be rescued from their own incompetence every year. People coming from Africa will have little experience of the sea. Those that do, will only know the friendly warm sea of their homeland. They will have no idea of what hypothermia is, or how quickly it can set in. They will also have no clue of the amount, or physical size, of the traffic in the English Channel. What economic migrants will know is that the UK is a land of opportunity, having been told that by their friends and relatives who have made the journey beforehand. If they get shipped off to Rwanda, they'll soon tell their friends how awful life is, and that story will get spread around. Obviously, that last part doesn't apply to genuine asylum seekers, but the policy isn't trying to discourage that sort." "you seem to imply that it's African crossers that are economic migrants, was that the intention? And are we extending that to anyone who comes via Africa such as Middle East." That wasn't my intention. It also applies to those from the Middle East. "And if so, how did these folk get into Europe to start with ? " I don't know. Is that relevant? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tens and tens of thousands arrive each year. It's clear there is zero intention to stop it as only about 200 or so, maybe one thousand at most could ever get sent to Rwanda. It's not going to happen no matter who we elect. Not with this regime of government anyway." Perhaps you should read the rest of the thread where the idea of a deterrent is discussed. And then go and read the previous threads in which you posted the same thing, and several people demonstrated that your numbers were wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"215,500 current home office asylum applications. Rwanda capacity 500 a year. 431 years at full capacity " let's be generous and say it's 5000pa. So only 43 years. Quicker to just call them all too difficult and get rid that way. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"215,500 current home office asylum applications. Rwanda capacity 500 a year. 431 years at full capacity let's be generous and say it's 5000pa. So only 43 years. Quicker to just call them all too difficult and get rid that way. " That defeats the objective. The only purpose of the Rwanda scheme to to bolster support from those even further to the right of the current Tory government. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"215,500 current home office asylum applications. Rwanda capacity 500 a year. 431 years at full capacity let's be generous and say it's 5000pa. So only 43 years. Quicker to just call them all too difficult and get rid that way. " The institute of economics and peace predicts around 1,200,000,000 people (1.5X population Europe) could be displaced by 2050, due to natural disasters and climate change. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok we have seen a large rise in the "boat people" since brext. This is because migrants used the channel tunnel but due to increased security that is less successful. An illegal Immigrant is likely to try and get to the UK as they may have friends and relatives there that will house them and give them a cash in hand job. An illegal immigrants cannot legally work or claim and sort of benefit. How could they? They have no NI number. If you claim asylum then you will be housed in temporary accommodation, hotel, hostel get 3 meals a day and £5 a day. You cannot work or claim benefits until your claim is processed. Obviously there are genuine asylum seekers and some chancers We even have asylum seekers that are qualified doctors and nurses that want to work but can't. Were is this thing that all asmym seekers are poor but yet have ann iPhone? A lot a middle class people leaving a war torn country. If China invaded Europe tomorrow and you were trying to claim asylum in the USA. Would you bring your phone with you? " In the meantime taxpayer is paying £47.39 a night per head to house these folk, plus medical,legal, food etc. Some of that cost could be reduced by using the 10,000 long term empty ministry of defence homes which also cost the taxpayer another £25 million annually to maintain. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok we have seen a large rise in the "boat people" since brext. This is because migrants used the channel tunnel but due to increased security that is less successful. An illegal Immigrant is likely to try and get to the UK as they may have friends and relatives there that will house them and give them a cash in hand job. An illegal immigrants cannot legally work or claim and sort of benefit. How could they? They have no NI number. If you claim asylum then you will be housed in temporary accommodation, hotel, hostel get 3 meals a day and £5 a day. You cannot work or claim benefits until your claim is processed. Obviously there are genuine asylum seekers and some chancers We even have asylum seekers that are qualified doctors and nurses that want to work but can't. Were is this thing that all asmym seekers are poor but yet have ann iPhone? A lot a middle class people leaving a war torn country. If China invaded Europe tomorrow and you were trying to claim asylum in the USA. Would you bring your phone with you? In the meantime taxpayer is paying £47.39 a night per head to house these folk, plus medical,legal, food etc. Some of that cost could be reduced by using the 10,000 long term empty ministry of defence homes which also cost the taxpayer another £25 million annually to maintain. " Not getting into a debate or disagreeing with tou just stating facts and dispelling daily mail myths | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What the Rwanda scheme does is to 'take away the prize'. A tiny risk of dying is worth it if you can get to a rich country and find work. It's not worth taking that risk to end up in Rwanda. I dont think many will know about rwanda,do you ?" Maybe some will think it is somewhere in the UK? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok we have seen a large rise in the "boat people" since brext. This is because migrants used the channel tunnel but due to increased security that is less successful. An illegal Immigrant is likely to try and get to the UK as they may have friends and relatives there that will house them and give them a cash in hand job. An illegal immigrants cannot legally work or claim and sort of benefit. How could they? They have no NI number. If you claim asylum then you will be housed in temporary accommodation, hotel, hostel get 3 meals a day and £5 a day. You cannot work or claim benefits until your claim is processed. Obviously there are genuine asylum seekers and some chancers We even have asylum seekers that are qualified doctors and nurses that want to work but can't. Were is this thing that all asmym seekers are poor but yet have ann iPhone? A lot a middle class people leaving a war torn country. If China invaded Europe tomorrow and you were trying to claim asylum in the USA. Would you bring your phone with you? " Why are people so worried about what phones these people have. The resident extremist chap made a big rant about them all having iPhone 15s. I can only assume it's some kind of underhanded way of discrediting the authenticity of the asylum seekers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok we have seen a large rise in the "boat people" since brext. This is because migrants used the channel tunnel but due to increased security that is less successful. An illegal Immigrant is likely to try and get to the UK as they may have friends and relatives there that will house them and give them a cash in hand job. An illegal immigrants cannot legally work or claim and sort of benefit. How could they? They have no NI number. If you claim asylum then you will be housed in temporary accommodation, hotel, hostel get 3 meals a day and £5 a day. You cannot work or claim benefits until your claim is processed. Obviously there are genuine asylum seekers and some chancers We even have asylum seekers that are qualified doctors and nurses that want to work but can't. Were is this thing that all asmym seekers are poor but yet have ann iPhone? A lot a middle class people leaving a war torn country. If China invaded Europe tomorrow and you were trying to claim asylum in the USA. Would you bring your phone with you? Why are people so worried about what phones these people have. The resident extremist chap made a big rant about them all having iPhone 15s. I can only assume it's some kind of underhanded way of discrediting the authenticity of the asylum seekers." Ots the same as people on benefits all have flat screen TVs. Yeah 20 years ago a plasma was 15k! But try and find a crt TV now? Coukd probably get one from an East London hipster at twice the price for a tecknia from tescos | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What the Rwanda scheme does is to 'take away the prize'. A tiny risk of dying is worth it if you can get to a rich country and find work. It's not worth taking that risk to end up in Rwanda. Probably I dont think many will know about rwanda,do you ? Maybe some will think it is somewhere in the UK?" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What the Rwanda scheme does is to 'take away the prize'. A tiny risk of dying is worth it if you can get to a rich country and find work. It's not worth taking that risk to end up in Rwanda. Probably I dont think many will know about rwanda,do you ? Maybe some will think it is somewhere in the UK?" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok we have seen a large rise in the "boat people" since brext. This is because migrants used the channel tunnel but due to increased security that is less successful. An illegal Immigrant is likely to try and get to the UK as they may have friends and relatives there that will house them and give them a cash in hand job. An illegal immigrants cannot legally work or claim and sort of benefit. How could they? They have no NI number. If you claim asylum then you will be housed in temporary accommodation, hotel, hostel get 3 meals a day and £5 a day. You cannot work or claim benefits until your claim is processed. Obviously there are genuine asylum seekers and some chancers We even have asylum seekers that are qualified doctors and nurses that want to work but can't. Were is this thing that all asmym seekers are poor but yet have ann iPhone? A lot a middle class people leaving a war torn country. If China invaded Europe tomorrow and you were trying to claim asylum in the USA. Would you bring your phone with you? In the meantime taxpayer is paying £47.39 a night per head to house these folk, plus medical,legal, food etc. Some of that cost could be reduced by using the 10,000 long term empty ministry of defence homes which also cost the taxpayer another £25 million annually to maintain. " 47.39 per week. For food. Room is on top. Suspect it's more given UK procurement record. Based on another thread (tho it may have been a Reddit thread), military residents tend to be just about habitable at the best of times. The other option is to clear them quicker. According to Rishi we can do that if we put our minds to it. Or a questionnaire anyway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok we have seen a large rise in the "boat people" since brext. This is because migrants used the channel tunnel but due to increased security that is less successful. An illegal Immigrant is likely to try and get to the UK as they may have friends and relatives there that will house them and give them a cash in hand job. An illegal immigrants cannot legally work or claim and sort of benefit. How could they? They have no NI number. If you claim asylum then you will be housed in temporary accommodation, hotel, hostel get 3 meals a day and £5 a day. You cannot work or claim benefits until your claim is processed. Obviously there are genuine asylum seekers and some chancers We even have asylum seekers that are qualified doctors and nurses that want to work but can't. Were is this thing that all asmym seekers are poor but yet have ann iPhone? A lot a middle class people leaving a war torn country. If China invaded Europe tomorrow and you were trying to claim asylum in the USA. Would you bring your phone with you? In the meantime taxpayer is paying £47.39 a night per head to house these folk, plus medical,legal, food etc. Some of that cost could be reduced by using the 10,000 long term empty ministry of defence homes which also cost the taxpayer another £25 million annually to maintain. 47.39 per week. For food. Room is on top. Suspect it's more given UK procurement record. Based on another thread (tho it may have been a Reddit thread), military residents tend to be just about habitable at the best of times. The other option is to clear them quicker. According to Rishi we can do that if we put our minds to it. Or a questionnaire anyway. " On the housing government is paying Clearsprings hundreds of millions for the accommodation at cost to taxpayer . Mod has c10,000 empty homes, page 6, parliamentary briefing says 96.2% meets the decent homes standard, and 87.9% the decent homes plus standard. Scandal this large amount of state owned housing is not been utilised. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9716/CBP-9716.pdf#page6 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok we have seen a large rise in the "boat people" since brext. This is because migrants used the channel tunnel but due to increased security that is less successful. An illegal Immigrant is likely to try and get to the UK as they may have friends and relatives there that will house them and give them a cash in hand job. An illegal immigrants cannot legally work or claim and sort of benefit. How could they? They have no NI number. If you claim asylum then you will be housed in temporary accommodation, hotel, hostel get 3 meals a day and £5 a day. You cannot work or claim benefits until your claim is processed. Obviously there are genuine asylum seekers and some chancers We even have asylum seekers that are qualified doctors and nurses that want to work but can't. Were is this thing that all asmym seekers are poor but yet have ann iPhone? A lot a middle class people leaving a war torn country. If China invaded Europe tomorrow and you were trying to claim asylum in the USA. Would you bring your phone with you? In the meantime taxpayer is paying £47.39 a night per head to house these folk, plus medical,legal, food etc. Some of that cost could be reduced by using the 10,000 long term empty ministry of defence homes which also cost the taxpayer another £25 million annually to maintain. 47.39 per week. For food. Room is on top. Suspect it's more given UK procurement record. Based on another thread (tho it may have been a Reddit thread), military residents tend to be just about habitable at the best of times. The other option is to clear them quicker. According to Rishi we can do that if we put our minds to it. Or a questionnaire anyway. On the housing government is paying Clearsprings hundreds of millions for the accommodation at cost to taxpayer . Mod has c10,000 empty homes, page 6, parliamentary briefing says 96.2% meets the decent homes standard, and 87.9% the decent homes plus standard. Scandal this large amount of state owned housing is not been utilised. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9716/CBP-9716.pdf#page6" decent is a very low bar if you look at the definition. This paper only looks at family accomodation which is only a quarter of all accommodation. If these accommodation were suitable, id be agreeing with you. I'm just sceptical given various bits I've seen. I'm also expecting something to come out about Clearwater. They smell a bit off imo. Either which way giving them ten year contracts suggest there's little faith we will be seeing reduced numbers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Rwanda President said if no one goes to Rwanda he will refund the cash , hope someone has kept the receipts . " As pointed out by the barrister on question time this week, Rwanda is not a prison, anyone sent there is free to leave and make their way back to anywhere they choose, using the resettlement money they have been given. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If China invaded Europe tomorrow and you were trying to claim asylum in the USA. Would you bring your phone with you? " Errr. Yes. Wouldn’t you? It’s basically the most useful tool any of us own these days. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
