Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: albie on April 13, 2022, 11:01:51 pm
-
New destination for UK migrant applicants:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rwanda-offshore-asylum-seekers-boris-johnson-priti-patel-b2057541.html
WTF is this all above.
The UK has international responsibilities under the Refugee Convention.
How about providing safe routes and removing illegal trafficking from the system?
-
Jesus Christ.....
BobG
-
Lynton Crosby
-
I'm not sure there's a solution to the immigration problem. But I'm sure that this isn't it.
-
Dead cat, to take away the news that the PM is fighting off
-
I've been saying for years that Patel is a sociopath. Prioritising this, while we are still getting barely anyone in from Ukraine. Just disgusting.
Worth noting. Hitler initially had a plan to deport Jews to Madagascar.
-
Lynton Crosby
Another person from Australia who introduces divisive and controversial issues into a situation.
-
As I'm writing this, I'm listening to a Cabinet minister on the radio stumbling and stammering over questions on this.
I might be reading between the lines, but he sounded horrified by what he was asked to support and defend.
-
Lynton Crosby
Another person from Australia who introduces divisive and controversial issues into a situation.
Spot on hound, Crosby will be right behind this, driving the culture wars as a distraction away from his absolute shit show of a government.
-
Timing.
He was in need of a big destraction.
-
They said on BBC this morning , that Patel herself doesn't even know if it can get passed the legal challenges it faces , so it's just a headline really to show " Brexit works" and we can make decisions. Another interesting point on Tele was rlthe question, 3 immigrants arrive together, 2 Africans and a Ukrainian- two are sent to Rwanda and one straight off to be put up in a spare room in blighty? How do they explain that one
-
It's a headline and a heated debate alright.
To take the focus off partygate.
It's a standard Johnson tactic, create some outrage as a deflection. He knows how to use the media.
-
question, 3 immigrants arrive together, 2 Africans and a Ukrainian- two are sent to Rwanda and one straight off to be put up in a spare room in blighty? How do they explain that one
I think it means that we only want the right type of immigrant....?
-
Maybe if we stopped selling arms to gangster governments or siding with US foreign policy we wouldn't have this problem on this kind of scale .
-
It's a headline and a heated debate alright.
To take the focus off partygate.
It's a standard Johnson tactic, create some outrage as a deflection. He knows how to use the media.
Yep don't get distracted from the main event, johnson's criminality, keep your eye on his other hand. he's giving the finger to the people of Britain.
-
Hotel Rwanda?
-
Yep, he could be the last king of Scotland
-
Timing.
He was in need of a big destraction.
Timing wise, I thought the issuing of fixed penalty notices during eater recess was pretty obviously engineered also.
-
https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=284651.0
and try to keep a straight face as the penny drops :thumbsup:
-
Why are we sending a shit tonne of tax payer money to Rwanda?
-
The minister knew nothing about this, and ruled it out a few days ago:
https://twitter.com/bmay/status/1514360143001104393?cxt=HHwWksC5mdqhi4QqAAAA
So the distraction tactic, while the Easter recess is taking place, is a big motive.
Rwanda has an appalling human rights record in relation to migrants, and is not a location any of the refugees fleeing war would be looking to move to.
A new moral morass for the UK to mire ourselves in.
Unlawful and a breach of our agreed responsibilities to the international community as well.
-
Can I ask a genuine question please? I really would like to know of examples of a similar size 'distraction' tactic employed by Mrs.Thatcher, Tony Blair and/or Gordon Brown. Each of them had big problems to deal with in the Poll Tax, Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Financial Crisis. I'd like to see how Fatso compares.
BobG
-
Seems the UK isn’t the first country in Europe to allow the processing of asylum seekers in a third country. Cannot remember much up take on this on this forum when it happened
https://eumigrationlawblog.eu/denmarks-legislation-on-extraterritorial-asylum-in-light-of-international-and-eu-law/
-
Interesting link, glosterred.
I was not aware of the Denmark situation.
Likely that this will end up in the courts, with Rwanda in the spotlight as a "safe third country", or not!
Looks very much to me like an immigration version of extraordinary rendition, where those who have a right to claim asylum or have a migrant application considered in the UK on arrival, are deferred to a holding location pending a decision.
It seems to me to open the door to further exploitation of vulnerable people to a new forms of trafficking, outside UK jurisdiction.
-
Johnson announced last weekend we will be sending £1m in arms and aid to Ukraine.
They have announced this inital TRIAL plan will cost c£1.5m.
Not sure myself they have their priorities right - still it will keep the racists happy.
-
Johnson announced last weekend we will be sending £1m in arms and aid to Ukraine.
They have announced this inital TRIAL plan will cost c£1.5m.
Not sure myself they have their priorities right - still it will keep the racists happy.
Not sure where that £1m comes from but so far this
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ukraine-uk-pledges-another-80million-in-aid-to-help-ukraine-deal-with-humanitarian-crisis
Has been spent on Ukraine
-
Seems the UK isn’t the first country in Europe to allow the processing of asylum seekers in a third country. Cannot remember much up take on this on this forum when it happened
https://eumigrationlawblog.eu/denmarks-legislation-on-extraterritorial-asylum-in-light-of-international-and-eu-law/
Probably because there wasn't much news on it and also it's another country and not the UK.
-
So far a lot has been said about this proposal but no one on here as yet to come up with an alternative. Everyone that turns up illegally cost the taxpayer money. As taxpayers money is finite what is the alternative?
-
Seems the UK isn’t the first country in Europe to allow the processing of asylum seekers in a third country. Cannot remember much up take on this on this forum when it happened
https://eumigrationlawblog.eu/denmarks-legislation-on-extraterritorial-asylum-in-light-of-international-and-eu-law/
But that can't be true gloster - Johnson said in his speech this morning he was only able to do this because of Brexit?
Are you saying he was lying (again?).
-
So far a lot has been said about this proposal but no one on here as yet to come up with an alternative. Everyone that turns up illegally cost the taxpayer money. As taxpayers money is finite what is the alternative?
Taxpayers money would appear not to be finite as this will be in place forever thus cost billions.
Process the applications in France is the logical think to do - but that wont keep the racists happy.
-
So far a lot has been said about this proposal but no one on here as yet to come up with an alternative. Everyone that turns up illegally cost the taxpayer money. As taxpayers money is finite what is the alternative?
Send 'em to the moon! :silly:
-
Johnson announced last weekend we will be sending £1m in arms and aid to Ukraine.
They have announced this inital TRIAL plan will cost c£1.5m.
Not sure myself they have their priorities right - still it will keep the racists happy.
Not sure where that £1m comes from but so far this
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ukraine-uk-pledges-another-80million-in-aid-to-help-ukraine-deal-with-humanitarian-crisis
Has been spent on Ukraine
Surely you've realised by now that what Boris promises and what Boris delivers are two very separate things.
-
So far a lot has been said about this proposal but no one on here as yet to come up with an alternative. Everyone that turns up illegally cost the taxpayer money. As taxpayers money is finite what is the alternative?
Taxpayers money would appear not to be finite as this will be in place forever thus cost billions.
Process the applications in France is the logical think to do - but that wont keep the racists happy.
Will the French allow that?
-
Timing.
He was in need of a big destraction.
Timing wise, I thought the issuing of fixed penalty notices during eater recess was pretty obviously engineered also.
It was Jimmy Saville the last time.
Each time he reaches for something he knows will outrage.
-
Rwanda? Mali would seem a better option, settle em on the land where our Armed forces have been training with depleted Uranium Artilley Shells!
-
.... And when they get to Rwanda they get processed which will take a while ... Months at a guess
If they are accepted for assylum they then stay in Rwanda for 5 years at Tax payers expense and they get accommodation food and drink etc
That lasts for 5 years as they are trained for future employment in the UK
If they are not accepted for assylum they get returned "home," or to anywhere that will take them
So land or get landed in UK and you can look forward to 5 plus years in Rwanda .... If you are accepted
OR if you are not accepted probably 6 months in Rwanda before being kicked out
Wonder if they will be given Board games to pass the time. Snakes and Ladders would be good for them. Sure the irony would not be lost on them
-
Whilst I personally would never liken a human being to trash, we live in a world where countries spend millions shipping their by products to far flung corners of the globe so they are out of sight.
Recycled waste for one.
Nuclear waste is another.
-
This is not a workable solution in my opinion .
Now whether liberals want to accept it or not we cannot take everyone who wishes to come here , our infrastructure including schools and houses doesn't stack up .
Neither can we carry on seeing successful channel crossings at the rate we are seeing and that includes migrants risking their lives in doing so .
It's high time this country had a grown up debate about this instead of both sides using it for political advantage and I'm talking here about the far right and the loony left .
There's a consensus somewhere in the middle and it's time it was heard and put in election manifestos which on the subject of immigration never happens .
-
So far a lot has been said about this proposal but no one on here as yet to come up with an alternative. Everyone that turns up illegally cost the taxpayer money. As taxpayers money is finite what is the alternative?
Taxpayers money would appear not to be finite as this will be in place forever thus cost billions.
Process the applications in France is the logical think to do - but that wont keep the racists happy.
Will the French allow that?
Yes, the French have allowed it already...it is in their interest not to have a backlog at Calais.
I am not sure what you mean by turn up illegally.
Johnson said this, but all asylum seekers are allowed to ask for asylum when they reach their destination country.
There is a difference between the means of transport (dinghies and traffickers), and flying to the UK and presenting on arrival.
Bozo seems to be saying that if you arrive by unapproved means, then you forego your rights under international law. This is complete moonshine.
Forced deportation to a lawless country like Rwanda is a breach of the Refugee Convention the UK signed, and is a massive expense going forwards. Tory MP Andrew Mitchell said it would be cheaper to put them in the Ritz, and send the kids to Eton!
-
So far a lot has been said about this proposal but no one on here as yet to come up with an alternative. Everyone that turns up illegally cost the taxpayer money. As taxpayers money is finite what is the alternative?
Taxpayers money would appear not to be finite as this will be in place forever thus cost billions.
Process the applications in France is the logical think to do - but that wont keep the racists happy.
Will the French allow that?
Not so much will they allow it - they keep asking us to do it!
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16901902/emmanuel-macron-asylum-seeker-processing-centre/
This isn't a plan - its a gimmick to appeal to the racists and distract from his lies and actions over unlawful gatherings in Downing Street. Like all his other gimmicks it will cost the taxpayer £millions and solve nothing.
-
What’s the betting some Tory cronies have land in Rwanda that they are willing to rent at over inflated costs
-
Oooh... Wash your mouth out!
BobG
-
So far a lot has been said about this proposal but no one on here as yet to come up with an alternative. Everyone that turns up illegally cost the taxpayer money. As taxpayers money is finite what is the alternative?
Taxpayers money would appear not to be finite as this will be in place forever thus cost billions.
Process the applications in France is the logical think to do - but that wont keep the racists happy.
Will the French allow that?
Not so much will they allow it - they keep asking us to do it!
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16901902/emmanuel-macron-asylum-seeker-processing-centre/
This isn't a plan - its a gimmick to appeal to the racists and distract from his lies and actions over unlawful gatherings in Downing Street. Like all his other gimmicks it will cost the taxpayer £millions and solve nothing.
If it's anything like most of Patel's other neo-fascist schemes, it'll be found to be illegal in the courts.
But that is the idea. Chuck the racists some red meat, then tell them that The Elite have taken it away from them.
I've been saying for years that the Tories have f**k all to offer this country but a Culture War. This is the latest battleground.
-
Borump knows he is batting on a sticky wicket, and has acted before he has the power to do so;
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/14/boris-johnson-takes-pre-emptive-shot-at-lawyers-over-rwanda-scheme
The need for cover, to distract from his wrongdoing on Partygate (and Rishigate, and the PPE scandal etc) means that he will take the hit further down the road when the courts over-rule him.
Cynical yes, .....but with big costs for those forcibly displaced into internment camps in Rwanda.
The depravity is beyond measure!
-
Is it THIS Rwanda that I've just heard Johnson on the radio singing the praises of, or is there another one?
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/un-human-rights-council-universal-periodic-review-adoption-rwanda
-
So far a lot has been said about this proposal but no one on here as yet to come up with an alternative. Everyone that turns up illegally cost the taxpayer money. As taxpayers money is finite what is the alternative?
Taxpayers money would appear not to be finite as this will be in place forever thus cost billions.
Process the applications in France is the logical think to do - but that wont keep the racists happy.
Will the French allow that?
Not so much will they allow it - they keep asking us to do it!
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16901902/emmanuel-macron-asylum-seeker-processing-centre/
This isn't a plan - its a gimmick to appeal to the racists and distract from his lies and actions over unlawful gatherings in Downing Street. Like all his other gimmicks it will cost the taxpayer £millions and solve nothing.
If it's anything like most of Patel's other neo-fascist schemes, it'll be found to be illegal in the courts.
But that is the idea. Chuck the racists some red meat, then tell them that The Elite have taken it away from them.
I've been saying for years that the Tories have f**k all to offer this country but a Culture War. This is the latest battleground.
“I've been saying for years”.
But of course you would, as an active Tory hater.
-
Oh for God's sake Hound.... Just once, please. take a look at what is happening right in front of you.
BobG
-
He isn't bothered about that, Bob, only pursuing his obsession with BST.
-
Pies, you can’t deny that he hates the Tory’s.
He spends half of every day proving it.
-
Oh for God's sake Hound.... Just once, please. take a look at what is happening right in front of you.
BobG
Thank you Bob, for pointing out the obvious but I don’t need you to do that.
I am more than capable of seeing what is out there.
-
Remember they can't find the money to help people with their energy bills. But they can find a few billion quid to ship black folk out of the country whenever they want.
-
Separate matters. But, does anyone have an answer? Does labour? Do any posters on here? I ain't got a clue to be honest.
-
Remember they can't find the money to help people with their energy bills. But they can find a few billion quid to ship black folk out of the country whenever they want.
Are all the immigrants black MM?
I haven’t seen anything that says that.
Genuinely.
-
Pud,
Yes, there is a solution.
1) Open a centre in France to process applications, adequately staffed.
2) Deal with applications promptly.
3) Allow the 75% who succeed to cross by ferry on receiving approval.
4) Advise those who fail (after appeal if relevant) on alternatives (and support) for their situation.
5) Make sure that the criteria are fully understood in the countries of origin to prevent pointless attempts.
In a nutshell, that is it.
Trouble is, the government don't really want to sort it out, they want to use it to appeal to their base.....and deflect from their corruption.
-
Albie, do you think that the French would allow that on their soil, given that they are more than happy for the boats to sail across the Channel and let the problem be ours.
-
No surprise to me as they like off shoring, so why not include refugees
-
Hound,
Yes, the French would be very pleased....they have been asking the UK to do just this.
They are not happy with the situation in Calais, where camps of people trying to cross are located.
The problem is ours already, if people want to come here and are prepared to risk their lives to do so. As 75% have the right to stay, best to take them out of the traffickers and give them a safe route of passage.
-
Hound,
Yes, the French would be very pleased....they have been asking the UK to do just this.
They are not happy with the situation in Calais, where camps of people trying to cross are located.
The problem is ours already, if people want to come here and are prepared to risk their lives to do so. As 75% have the right to stay, best to take them out of the traffickers and give them a safe route of passage.
Yes mate, I understand what you say in paragraph two and accept that the French would like to do away with the refugee camps in Calais but didn’t know that they have been asking the UK to arrange some kind of processing operation over there.
Cheers for that info.
-
Hound,
Yes, the French would be very pleased....they have been asking the UK to do just this.
They are not happy with the situation in Calais, where camps of people trying to cross are located.
The problem is ours already, if people want to come here and are prepared to risk their lives to do so. As 75% have the right to stay, best to take them out of the traffickers and give them a safe route of passage.
Yes mate, I understand what you say in paragraph two and accept that the French would like to do away with the refugee camps in Calais but didn’t know that they have been asking the UK to arrange some kind of processing operation over there.
Cheers for that info.
As ever Hound politicians try to come up with simple solutions to complex issues .
Having given this matter a bit more thought I'm fairly convinced this latest policy will over promise and under deliver .
It's unlikely Rwanda will be receiving anybody once the human rights lawyers get to work and any final ruling will probably take years to decide upon .
This country is signed up to what ever it's signed up to and reversing that is going to take time , to say the least .
Once again this subject becomes a political football .
We live in hope that a grown up debate will happen one day on this subject and put in manifestos .
Don't hold your breath mind .
-
"Once again this subject becomes a political football ."
The point, the whole point and nothing but the point.
This has the square root of f**k all to do with finding a solution. It's got everything to do with pandering to the dregs of society.
-
This will never happen. It will be prevented for the reasons given by Tyke1962.
Sure Johnson knows this. He's announcing it now to deflect from partygate and to try to bolster his support ahead of the local elections whose results are crucial to his political survival.
There is a real problem here with criminal gangs putting vulnerable peoples' lives at risk, not just crossing the Channel but getting to the French coast from Africa/Asia.
The solution is international co-operation in going after the gangs and closing them down. Remember the outcry when a boat crossing the Channel sunk with major loss of life? The political will was there then across national boundaries to punish the particular criminals involved. The same approach is needed on a wider scale against ALL the trafficking gangs.
-
This from an ITV political journalist.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AnushkaAsthana/status/1514652467908251656
What a f**king shower of shite this lot in power truly are.
-
Hardly surprising comments given that Astana worked for the Guardian, that well’ known right wing rag.
-
"Once again this subject becomes a political football ."
The point, the whole point and nothing but the point.
This has the square root of f**k all to do with finding a solution. It's got everything to do with pandering to the dregs of society.
Who are the dregs of society Billy ?
-
"Once again this subject becomes a political football ."
The point, the whole point and nothing but the point.
This has the square root of f**k all to do with finding a solution. It's got everything to do with pandering to the dregs of society.
Who are the dregs of society Billy ?
Those who applaud this sort of blatantly racist posturing. Pat knows damn f**king well that this will never fly. She's doing it so she can whip up the minority of the electorate who would be delighted to see asylum seekers shipped off to a place that the Govt itself last year said had human rights violations.
I fully accept that we, along with the whole of Europe, have a serious issue to deal with on immigration. This isn't a serious solution. It's designed to play to people who don't have an interest in a serious solution, but want to see us lashing out at immigrants.
-
Pud,
Yes, there is a solution.
1) Open a centre in France to process applications, adequately staffed.
2) Deal with applications promptly.
3) Allow the 75% who succeed to cross by ferry on receiving approval.
4) Advise those who fail (after appeal if relevant) on alternatives (and support) for their situation.
5) Make sure that the criteria are fully understood in the countries of origin to prevent pointless attempts.
In a nutshell, that is it.
Trouble is, the government don't really want to sort it out, they want to use it to appeal to their base.....and deflect from their corruption.
What sort of numbers would that generate annually?
Way more than 300,000 I'll be bound. I know we are tied into the treadmill of never ending growth but it will still put a hell of a strain on a nation that isn't coping very well with urban pollution, congestion, lack of housing, increasing environmental problems most noticeably flooding. Taken together with aging infrastructure generally and an energy crisis.
Let us not kid ourselves. It would be a massive, massive challenge.
-
"Once again this subject becomes a political football ."
The point, the whole point and nothing but the point.
This has the square root of f**k all to do with finding a solution. It's got everything to do with pandering to the dregs of society.
Who are the dregs of society Billy ?
Those who applaud this sort of blatantly racist posturing. Pat knows damn f**king well that this will never fly. She's doing it so she can whip up the minority of the electorate who would be delighted to see asylum seekers shipped off to a place that the Govt itself last year said had human rights violations.
I fully accept that we, along with the whole of Europe, have a serious issue to deal with on immigration. This isn't a serious solution. It's designed to play to people who don't have an interest in a serious solution, but want to see us lashing out at immigrants.
I'm not actually feeling that to be honest , i think this is so desperate it's not even going to play in to the hands it's meant to play in to in my opinion .
Johnson has a history of crumbling and reversing anything when opinion goes against him .
There isn't the consensus for this by any stretch of the imagination in my opinion .
I'm a much tougher immigration man but this doesn't fly with me and I suspect it won't fly with a good enough number of less liberal voters to get Johnson out of Dodge .
-
Tyke.
Watch how it is played as it crumbles.
When it's overturned in the courts, Johnson and Patel will go back to the Brexit line. "This is what the people want but the Liberal Elite are taking it away from you."
It's the only line they have. It's the Culture War. Just like Brexit was.
-
Fair play to some Tory MPs for calling this shite out for what it is.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AvaSantina/status/1514558050111262724
Although he's also on the "unscrupulous lawyers" Culture War project.
Imagine having lawyers who actually ensure that due legal process is adhered to!
-
River Don,
What are you talking about?
The method of assessment does not generate more claims than are permissible under the regulations.
The number of possible migrants is set by the rules of eligibility.
Most of those coming to the UK have a legitimate claim under the current criteria.
If you think that the criteria need to be revised, that is a completely different argument to the acceptance of those who meet the rules as they stand.
What Johnson is saying is that applicants who arrive by unapproved means of transport lose their right to consideration under the present rules. Those arriving in inflatables do so because they have no other options.
That position will not survive a legal challenge.
He knows this, but wants to be defeated in court, so he can follow the culture wars line against lawyers and human rights considerations.
Take the position of those who arrive at UK airports and claim for asylum, or refugees from the Ukraine war.
People in the UK have offered hospitality for those escaping the war. These traumatised people do not arrive in inflatable craft.
He is expelling people seeking sanctuary without consideration of the merits of their claim. This is a fundamental breach of their rights.
-
Albie
I don't know about assessments, criteria, rules, regulations and eligibility...
But it is obvious that if your suggestions were implemented, it would act as a huge draw.
Unless you're suggesting they are going to turn around thousands who don't meet the criteria, which would only create more shanty towns of desperate people on the northern French coast.
-
The most disgusting part of this is that Patel's parents were immigrants from next door to Rwanda. They came to Britain for a better life when Idi Amin was persecuting them. They were allowed in by a Tory Govt that had the moral backbone to face down racists like Powell, even though it would have been in their electoral interests to close the doors.
Patel is presiding over a f**king shambles of a response to the Ukraine crisis. So far, 250,000 people in the UK have offered to house Ukranian refugees. We've issued visas to just 1,200. Patel says it's because it takes time to get the system right. Yet she rushed out a half-baked Rwanda scheme to prop up Govt support from racists. She is utterly without a soul.
-
''The dead cat strategy, or deadcatting, is the introduction of a dramatic, shocking, or sensationalist topic to divert discourse away from a more damaging topic.[1][2] The strategy, or at least the "dead cat" metaphor to describe it, is particularly associated with Australian political strategist Lynton Crosby.[3][4]''
''johnson employed Crosby as his campaign manager during the 2008 and 2012 London mayoral elections, and wrote of his advice that:
There is one thing that is absolutely certain about throwing a dead cat on the dining room table – and I don’t mean that people will be outraged, alarmed, disgusted. That is true, but irrelevant. The key point, says my Australian friend, is that everyone will shout, ‘Jeez, mate, there’s a dead cat on the table!’ In other words, they will be talking about the dead cat – the thing you want them to talk about – and they will not be talking about the issue that has been causing you so much grief.[4]''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_cat_strategy
it must be difficult to find something with a worst smell than johnson and his government
-
Can I ask a genuine question please? I really would like to know of examples of a similar size 'distraction' tactic employed by Mrs.Thatcher, Tony Blair and/or Gordon Brown. Each of them had big problems to deal with in the Poll Tax, Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Financial Crisis. I'd like to see how Fatso compares.
BobG
So, given the deafening silence in response to my question, it's pretty obvious Fatso is in a league of his own when it comes to duplicity then.
Thanks
BobG
-
Pud,
Yes, there is a solution.
1) Open a centre in France to process applications, adequately staffed.
2) Deal with applications promptly.
3) Allow the 75% who succeed to cross by ferry on receiving approval.
4) Advise those who fail (after appeal if relevant) on alternatives (and support) for their situation.
5) Make sure that the criteria are fully understood in the countries of origin to prevent pointless attempts.
In a nutshell, that is it.
Trouble is, the government don't really want to sort it out, they want to use it to appeal to their base.....and deflect from their corruption.
They certainly used to do some of this (not public knowledge because politically it's tricky).
But it doesn't solve the problem entirely. How do you limit it, is it 75% of 5 million, 5000???
-
There wont be anyone not fleeing a war zone because of anything Johnson does.
But like most political schemes he has it will cost the taxpayer a fortune and cause more problems than it solves.
Hardly any refugees come here anyway. Look at Ukraine - what is it were have taken in 0.01% or something like that?
I think those who are keen on this should be the ones who pay for it.
-
A new low for Johnson, Patel et al.
April Fool p*ss takes as 'policy'.
In December 2019 this country faced two awful choices for Prime Minister; Corbyn and Johnson. Thankfully, Corbyn was rejected, is now gone and with good riddance.
However, I for one never thought that the choice of Johnson as PM would play out this badly. What we're witnessing now is just unbelievable.
-
''FactCheck Q&A: how much was spent on the Cambodia refugee deal and how many were settled?''
''I think it is more accurate to view the resettlement agreement amount holistically as totalling $55 million. This is because the “development assistance” was tied to the resettlement agreement. Putting any dispute as to the exact monetary contribution aside, it is correct that it has assisted very few refugees. – Maria O'Sullivan''
https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-how-much-was-spent-on-the-cambodia-refugee-deal-and-how-many-were-settled-68807#:~:text=At%20the%20time%20it%20was%20signed%2C%20immigration%20minister%20Scott%20Morrison,providing%20in%20aid%20to%20Cambodia.
-
Home Office officals refuse to back Patel's plan - as they dont believe it provides value for money for the tax payer - but she is going ahead with it anyway (since when did the woman sacked for among other things, offering taxpayers money to the Israeli Army, care about tax payers money)
https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1515031265044537357
-
Home Office officals refuse to back Patel's plan - as they dont believe it provides value for money for the tax payer - but she is going ahead with it anyway (since when did the woman sacked for among other things, offering taxpayers money to the Israeli Army, care about tax payers money)
https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1515031265044537357
That confirms what I posted last night from the ITN journalist.
Can you begin to imagine what it must be like working under Patel? Fair play to the senior civil servant for refusing to sign off this farrago. I suspect he'll be having a lovely time at work from here on.
-
Home Office officals refuse to back Patel's plan - as they dont believe it provides value for money for the tax payer - but she is going ahead with it anyway (since when did the woman sacked for among other things, offering taxpayers money to the Israeli Army, care about tax payers money)
https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1515031265044537357
A few months ago I posted something that Cummings had suggested but one prominent poster on here came on to tell me that advisors advise but Ministers decide.
-
Tyke.
Watch how it is played as it crumbles.
When it's overturned in the courts, Johnson and Patel will go back to the Brexit line. "This is what the people want but the Liberal Elite are taking it away from you."
It's the only line they have. It's the Culture War. Just like Brexit was.
Today's Mail is quite critical of the plan Billy .
I firmly believe Johnson has misjudged this one and it's going to rebound spectacularly .
Next month's council and the upcoming Wakefield by election will tell us where we are in my opinion .
-
A new low for Johnson, Patel et al.
April Fool p*ss takes as 'policy'.
In December 2019 this country faced two awful choices for Prime Minister; Corbyn and Johnson. Thankfully, Corbyn was rejected, is now gone and with good riddance.
However, I for one never thought that the choice of Johnson as PM would play out this badly. What we're witnessing now is just unbelievable.
[/quote
I did!
-
It was always inevitable that a Johnson Govt would play out like this.
A combination of incompetence, bombast, amorality and sheer populist nastiness. It's what the man is, so of course that was the sort of Govt he would lead.
-
Truly a shocking low even for a Johnson government, i do believe most people on here can see this for what it is, and as a distraction tactic amongst the worst you could ever hope to pull off. The fact that it will fail at its fist legal hurdle would relegate this to the junk box that contains the vast majority of this governments policies. This is not even a policy that any Tory worth the tag could ever agree and hope to progress.
We all know this a bigger problem than what this government is ever going to be able to cope with and i don't see many workable solutions coming in from the opposition that will allow this trafficking issue to be properly dealt with. If we can't even agree a sensible co-operation with the French then the can is still being kicked down the road, regardless of whatever colour of government.
-
Truly a shocking low even for a Johnson government, i do believe most people on here can see this for what it is, and as a distraction tactic amongst the worst you could ever hope to pull off. The fact that it will fail at its fist legal hurdle would relegate this to the junk box that contains the vast majority of this governments policies. This is not even a policy that any Tory worth the tag could ever agree and hope to progress.
We all know this a bigger problem than what this government is ever going to be able to cope with and i don't see many workable solutions coming in from the opposition that will allow this trafficking issue to be properly dealt with. If we can't even agree a sensible co-operation with the French then the can is still being kicked down the road, regardless of whatever colour of government.
Totally agree and it's high time this issue had a root and branch debate and a workable solution found for everyone .
While ever it doesn't happen the far right and the liberal left will attempt to gain politically out of it and neither of them are anywhere near coming up with a workable solution for voters to tick the box of their choice on this issue .
-
Whilst ever there remains such disparity of wealth between nations the 'problem' of illegal immigration will always be with us. It is natural for any person struggling to live to want to improve their lot and nations like the UK will be a lure to many.
Whether immigration is good for a country or not is an entirely separate debate (I absolutely believe it enriches societies), but population density I do believe is a problem for the UK now so I'll leave it at that.
Trying to contain the constant flow of immigrants is costly and ineffective, surely then, the only viable solution to the problem is to work to eradicate poverty in the countries where people struggle to survive. I can see many obstacles to this ever being achieved but without it illegal immigration will forever be with us.
-
Once again people mixing up economic migration with refugees fleeing war and persectution.
As previously posted 75% or those crossing the channel are confirmed as genuine refugees, that is fleeing war and persecution in their home country. The 25% who are not, but are judged to be economic migrants, are returned to their country of origin.
It is not, nor ever has been, illegal to seek refugee status in this or in any other democratic country allined to the UN (although the Tories are attempting to change that).
It would be helpful when you want to solve 'the problem' you are accurate and truthful on what 'the problem' is.
-
Whilst ever there remains such disparity of wealth between nations the 'problem' of illegal immigration will always be with us. It is natural for any person struggling to live to want to improve their lot and nations like the UK will be a lure to many.
Whether immigration is good for a country or not is an entirely separate debate (I absolutely believe it enriches societies), but population density I do believe is a problem for the UK now so I'll leave it at that.
Trying to contain the constant flow of immigrants is costly and ineffective, surely then, the only viable solution to the problem is to work to eradicate poverty in the countries where people struggle to survive. I can see many obstacles to this ever being achieved but without it illegal immigration will forever be with us.
Well that's the starting point isn't it and can I add US and UK foreign policy to that which also creates asylum seekers on a massive scale .
Don't offer a starving country fish to eat offer them a fleet of fishing boats .
Wealth distribution or lack of it resides in the UK and fuels right wing views .
People living week to week will resent competition for jobs , houses , schools and NHS waiting lists and it's high time the liberal left understood that .
These are conversations that are not easy because to stick your head up you risk getting called all sorts of things but none the less they need to be debated .
The solution is a win - win for everyone and not what's presented right now .
There's a vast area in the middle between right and left but whilst we are only presented with the right and left extremes we will continue to go around in circles on this matter .
-
Seems A significant number of Labour supporters agree with the move to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
-
Seems A significant number of Labour supporters agree with the move to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
I think a significant number of people in this country want to see clear controls on immigration.
The Rwanda scheme is a reaction to that but it isn't practical, will turn out to be prohibitively expensive and won't be effective.
It's just a PR stunt really. Typical Johnson, look we're tough on immigration.
The vast majority of illegal immigrants to this country don't come over in small boats from France. Most come here on a visa and then simply remain after it expires.
What's more, if Johnson really had any care about immigration, he wouldn't be negotiating a free trade deal with India which will see thousands of Indians given UK visas. Which by the way the UK government wants because there are big shortages in the Labour force since Brexit.
Smoke and mirrors again.
-
'Make a decision, what do you want democracy or chaos with johnson, those that discard the law in your name will at some time use it against you.
'In his rhetoric, Johnson stands with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy. But in his actions he declares his kinship with Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and the others. He writes life-and-death laws which he then breaks, flagrantly and repeatedly. Next, he lies about his lawbreaking to parliament – the same parliament, remember, that he illegally suspended as one of his first acts in power.
None of this is in the past. This week, perhaps in an attempt to divert attention away from the Partygate scandal, he announced plans to ship those seeking asylum – including those ultimately found to have a just and fair claim to refuge – to faraway Rwanda, a dictatorship with a record on human rights so bad the UK government raised concerns just last year. It’s likely that the new policy is against the law, “a breach of the right to life, the right not to be subject to inhuman and degrading treatment and the right to be tried before conviction”, according to one legal scholar. But that did not hold Johnson back. On the contrary, he would like nothing more than a court battle, so he can pose as the people’s tribune, once again frustrated by those he pre-emptively referred to in his Rwanda announcement as “an army of politically motivated lawyers”.
The pattern is clear: contempt for the law, contempt for those tasked with upholding it. Johnson’s defenders say he must stay in office because of Ukraine. In fact, the war for that country, and the wider struggle it has come to represent, make it all the more urgent that he go.
Read more here: Jonathan Freeland – Johnson to stay because of Ukraine? Nonsense. The war makes it more urgent that he go''
-
Pud,
Yes, there is a solution.
1) Open a centre in France to process applications, adequately staffed.
2) Deal with applications promptly.
3) Allow the 75% who succeed to cross by ferry on receiving approval.
4) Advise those who fail (after appeal if relevant) on alternatives (and support) for their situation.
5) Make sure that the criteria are fully understood in the countries of origin to prevent pointless attempts.
In a nutshell, that is it.
Trouble is, the government don't really want to sort it out, they want to use it to appeal to their base.....and deflect from their corruption.
They certainly used to do some of this (not public knowledge because politically it's tricky).
But it doesn't solve the problem entirely. How do you limit it, is it 75% of 5 million, 5000???
The admin being done in France is a solution every professional working with refugees supports.
This is because it removes those with credentials from the people traffickers, they have a safe route via the ferry.
Anything that removes 75% of the business traffic from the exploiters is worth doing.
No-one in the sector has suggested this will lead to an overall increase in applications.
The number eligible remains the same under the present rules.
If you believe that those rules need to be revised, then that is a totally different issue, nothing to do with admin for the small boats problem.
-
Decent summary from the BBC on the legality (or not) of the Rwanda proposal:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61122241
Johnson knows he is breaking the law, but thinks it is worth it to deflect his problems in the minute.
Add to the cost of this silly scheme the likely legal costs for a certain defeat in court......you and me will pay for this!
All this at the same time as no real help for people with their energy costs, what a strange priority!
-
Once again people mixing up economic migration with refugees fleeing war and persectution.
As previously posted 75% or those crossing the channel are confirmed as genuine refugees, that is fleeing war and persecution in their home country. The 25% who are not, but are judged to be economic migrants, are returned to their country of origin.
It is not, nor ever has been, illegal to seek refugee status in this or in any other democratic country allined to the UN (although the Tories are attempting to change that).
It would be helpful when you want to solve 'the problem' you are accurate and truthful on what 'the problem' is.
Wilts, it appears you are taking exception to my post. I'll apologise if what I have said has upset you, it wasn't my intention to be controversial, nor was I conflating economic migration with asylum seeking. I am as disgusted with our government's response to asylum seekers as anyone else and I agree wholeheartedly with every word of condemnation it attracts.
I noted a post on here yesterday making remarks to the effect that it is a difficult 'problem' to solve, as though trying to defend the indefensible of the government's decision.
Your final remark I do not appreciate. Please explain why you accuse me of being untruthful.
-
If those crossing the channel in dinghies are genuine refugees, and not economic migrants, Can someone tell me why 90% of them are young males?
-
If those crossing the channel in dinghies are genuine refugees, and not economic migrants, Can someone tell me why 90% of them are young males?
How do you think old women would escape from a war zone and travel 4000 miles overland?
-
Latest data for those who like a stat;
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/
The numbers fluctuate, according to season and the number of people displaced from war zones, but this gives a broad overview.
-
It's worked hasn't it?
Crosby's Dead Cat strategy.
No-one is talking about Johnson and lies in Parliament any more.
-
It's worked hasn't it?
Crosby's Dead Cat strategy.
No-one is talking about Johnson and lies in Parliament any more.
Until the next fine drops through the number 10 letterbox maybe .
-
Do you think we will hear about the next fine from Downing Street and then the 1 after that etc etc?
-
It all seems very wrong. Irrespective of the challenges of the situation as a whole, we shouldn't be looking to offload people to Rwanda.
I do always wonder why the first safe country is the UK and not one of the many they have travelled through.
-
Once again people mixing up economic migration with refugees fleeing war and persectution.
As previously posted 75% or those crossing the channel are confirmed as genuine refugees, that is fleeing war and persecution in their home country. The 25% who are not, but are judged to be economic migrants, are returned to their country of origin.
It is not, nor ever has been, illegal to seek refugee status in this or in any other democratic country allined to the UN (although the Tories are attempting to change that).
It would be helpful when you want to solve 'the problem' you are accurate and truthful on what 'the problem' is.
Wilts, it appears you are taking exception to my post. I'll apologise if what I have said has upset you, it wasn't my intention to be controversial, nor was I conflating economic migration with asylum seeking. I am as disgusted with our government's response to asylum seekers as anyone else and I agree wholeheartedly with every word of condemnation it attracts.
I noted a post on here yesterday making remarks to the effect that it is a difficult 'problem' to solve, as though trying to defend the indefensible of the government's decision.
Your final remark I do not appreciate. Please explain why you accuse me of being untruthful.
Sorry pies.
If I have a problem with/or am replying to a particular post then I will quote it so there is no misunderstanding. I wont lie and say that it wasn't your post that caused me to write mine - but it was not aimed at, nor was it a reply to you. I have been frustrated by a number of previous posts on this thread that have been inaccuate/spreading misinformation so was aimed at the whole board - not any particular individual.
For the avoidance of any further doubt I have never thought anything you have posted was untruthful. And should I ever do so in future I will adress you directly (same with anyone else).
-
Do you think we will hear about the next fine from Downing Street and then the 1 after that etc etc?
I can't think why a serving PM receiving multiple fines for breaking the rules he set wouldn't make headline news .
-
If those crossing the channel in dinghies are genuine refugees, and not economic migrants, Can someone tell me why 90% of them are young males?
How do you think old women would escape from a war zone and travel 4000 miles overland?
What about younger women though who could travel 4000 miles overland.
Is that a fair question?
-
If those crossing the channel in dinghies are genuine refugees, and not economic migrants, Can someone tell me why 90% of them are young males?
How do you think old women would escape from a war zone and travel 4000 miles overland?
What about younger women though who could travel 4000 miles overland.
Is that a fair question?
No, it's not really a fair question hound, because BST, in his desperation, has to turn everything into an example of racism in order to pursue his point. You should know that!
-
The claim that 90% of applications are from young men is incorrect.
The Red Cross gives the figure for women and children as 43%, leaving 57% as the figure for men of all ages;
https://www.redcross.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/how-we-support-refugees/find-out-about-refugees
Not that this is relevant to the unlawful decision to use extraordinary rendition against the vulnerable escaping war.
Do people really think those fleeing the Ukraine should be off-shored to Rwanda?
All those offering support to refugees seem to want them here, and out of harm's way.
-
If those crossing the channel in dinghies are genuine refugees, and not economic migrants, Can someone tell me why 90% of them are young males?
Here he is to save the day!
How do you think old women would escape from a war zone and travel 4000 miles overland?
What about younger women though who could travel 4000 miles overland.
Is that a fair question?
No, it's not really a fair question hound, because BST, in his desperation, has to turn everything into an example of racism in order to pursue his point. You should know that!
-
If those crossing the channel in dinghies are genuine refugees, and not economic migrants, Can someone tell me why 90% of them are young males?
As has been shown, you are wrong, but what would it matter if they were? a refugee is a refugee.
Aug 2021
''You have no idea what I do for a living. I work closely with immigration enforcement as part of a partner agency strategy. The uk govt makes no disparity between economic migrants and asylum seekers. They are either illegal entrants or not. It’s that simple.
I read no daily rag. I base my comments on real life experience.
I have personally been involved in extraditions within the schengen area pre covid.
The uk is not the place for tens of thousands of migrants to settle''
I would have thought you'd have been across the details of immigration NR?
-
If those crossing the channel in dinghies are genuine refugees, and not economic migrants, Can someone tell me why 90% of them are young males?
How do you think old women would escape from a war zone and travel 4000 miles overland?
What about younger women though who could travel 4000 miles overland.
Is that a fair question?
As we are seeing with Ukraine, younger women travelling are extremely vulnerable. People traffickers and sexual exploitation.
-
The claim that 90% of applications are from young men is incorrect.
The Red Cross gives the figure for women and children as 43%, leaving 57% as the figure for men of all ages;
https://www.redcross.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/how-we-support-refugees/find-out-about-refugees
Not that this is relevant to the unlawful decision to use extraordinary rendition against the vulnerable escaping war.
Do people really think those fleeing the Ukraine should be off-shored to Rwanda?
All those offering support to refugees seem to want them here, and out of harm's way.
Just to be clear albie, I am not against refugees from war torn areas coming here, whatever race or colour or gender they are.
-
If those crossing the channel in dinghies are genuine refugees, and not economic migrants, Can someone tell me why 90% of them are young males?
As has been shown, you are wrong, but what would it matter if they were? a refugee is a refugee.
Aug 2021
''You have no idea what I do for a living. I work closely with immigration enforcement as part of a partner agency strategy. The uk govt makes no disparity between economic migrants and asylum seekers. They are either illegal entrants or not. It’s that simple.
I read no daily rag. I base my comments on real life experience.
I have personally been involved in extraditions within the schengen area pre covid.
The uk is not the place for tens of thousands of migrants to settle''
I would have thought you'd have been across the details of immigration NR?
That was aug 2021.
This is now.
Single males will be treat differently if the HO gets its way.
-
So not yet then and it doesn't change the fact you were wrong and not for the first time either.
-
We can argue all day about the stats.
I’ve looked at some publications to assure myself I’m not far off in what I am led to believe.
The times reports this.
The vast majority — 90 per cent — of all small boat arrivals in 2021 were male. Three quarters of all arrivals were men aged 18 to 39. Just 7 per cent of arrivals were women. Children made up 12 per cent of all small boat arrivals, of whom three quarters were boys.
The migration observatory at Oxford Uni report the same stats.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjyqYa15Jr3AhVKa8AKHZl1D9AQFnoECAQQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmigrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk%2Fresources%2Fcommentaries%2Fqa-migrants-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats%2F&usg=AOvVaw3KC_wDmykigCOhhCVrtr47
But you can find contradictory reports if you look elsewhere of course.
-
The reply by Cold War Steve to Rees-Mogg here has to be the most perfect put down to sanctimonious hypocrisy in human history.
https://mobile.twitter.com/coldwarsteve/status/1515629295720357891
-
As we have seen recently with the Ukraine
The people seeking asylum from that country are 90% Women and children the men have stayed to fight. Which begs a few questions to be raised about all those boat loads of military age males
Landing at Dover?
-
''The Evil May Day Riots of 1517''
''On the night of 30 April/1 May 1517, Tudor London was gripped by violent riots. But what was the cause? Dr Joanne Paul explores the tensions that mounted that spring, leading to a night of looting and anger against ‘strangers’ in the capital ...''
''Lincoln was not the only Londoner who had long harboured resentment of foreigners, a sentiment that had increased in the months before Lincoln’s execution. Contemporary chroniclers suggest that European visitors had been boasting about their closeness to the king, mocking the Englishmen whom they displaced. In the more common streets of London, Englishmen complained of being cheated by foreigners who were protected by their nations’ favoured ambassadors. The native resentment at these uppity foreigners had spread and broken out in the riots that took place on the night of 30 April and into the early hours of 1 May.''
https://www.historyextra.com/period/tudor/evil-may-day-riots-what-happened-violence-london-foreigners/
-
What questions does it raise Sproty?
Not following your reasoning here.
Are you talking about asylum seekers, those looking to migrate, or people applying for resettlement?
The Red Cross link I put up above explains the difference between them.
Arriving in a small boat is beside the point...what is important is if they have a legitimate claim!
-
Has anybody said who's going to pay for the successful applicants to be flown back from Rwanda to the UK?
And pay for the unsuccessful applicants to be flown to...wherever?
-
Glyn,
Press coverage suggested it was a one way ticket to Rwanda.
Once there, detainees could apply to remain in Rwanda.
Which raises the probability of a new trafficking route from Rwanda back into Europe....not presumably the aim of the policy.
Completely unlawful under existing legal definitions of responsibilities towards refugees.
-
Kin ell, somebody taking us further back than Napoleon now.
-
Glyn,
Press coverage suggested it was a one way ticket to Rwanda.
Once there, detainees could apply to remain in Rwanda.
Which raises the probability of a new trafficking route from Rwanda back into Europe....not presumably the aim of the policy.
Completely unlawful under existing legal definitions of responsibilities towards refugees.
It's not been widely reported but Israel tried this exact same 'plan' 5 years ago. They shipped around 4000 migrants to Rwanda - all but 9 escaped and most are thought to have made their way to Europe.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10718481/How-Rwandas-migrant-deal-ended-escapees-claims-slavery.html
-
Glyn,
Press coverage suggested it was a one way ticket to Rwanda.
Once there, detainees could apply to remain in Rwanda.
Which raises the probability of a new trafficking route from Rwanda back into Europe....not presumably the aim of the policy.
Completely unlawful under existing legal definitions of responsibilities towards refugees.
I thought I had heard Correspondent on Telly say when they got there they applied for Asylum and if "accepted" they would then be housed fed and watered for 5 years
That time would be taken to train them for the jobs they would likely be taking up once allowed into UK
IF they get turned down they will be sent to any Country that will take them or sent ",home"
We will see the details this week and see whether it's just a dead cat to deflect attention from partygate
-
It's pointless looking at the plans.
None of this is designed or expected to ever happen.
Their shite stirrers in the Press are already on the bus heading to the real destination - the next Culture War battle. The Express and the Ma both screaming from their front page today how the Archbishop of Canterbury is trying to take away your right to shit on an asylum seeker.
-
But if airing the "plans" in the first place has the effect of breaking the small boat trafficking then is that not the starting point for then being able to put in place a civilised and regulated refugee package?
-
It won't. Because the criminals running the boats know this isn't a serious plan to break them.
-
The criminals running the boats, who've already had their money up front, don't give a toss for those on the boats they'll never see them again.
-
It won't. Because the criminals running the boats know this isn't a serious plan to break them.
Let me guess....any of Boris' mates run an air company that they can throw a few billion at for trafficking them to Rwanda?
-
But if airing the "plans" in the first place has the effect of breaking the small boat trafficking then is that not the starting point for then being able to put in place a civilised and regulated refugee package?
How? 20000 people arrived last year - this plan will remove 100 of them - who's that going to deter?
And as raven has pointed out - it wont stop the trafiickers because it isn't aimed at the traffickers only those who have been trafficked.
It's a complete waste of taxpayers money that I doubt was ever intended to work.
-
It won't. Because the criminals running the boats know this isn't a serious plan to break them.
Let me guess....any of Boris' mates run an air company that they can throw a few billion at for trafficking them to Rwanda?
No but one of them has just bought a large area of land near the airport. What might that be used for:
https://twitter.com/archer_rs/status/1516084674313048066
-
As project 'save the lying criminal c***' rolls on are the people of the UK going to accept another distraction while exporting problems to another country.
''Freedom of Expression
State interference and intimidation have forced many civil society actors and journalists to stop working on sensitive political or human rights issues. Most print and broadcast media continued to be heavily dominated by pro-government views. Independent civil society organizations are very weak, and few document and expose human rights violations by state agents''
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/rwanda
-
What did the Rwandans ever do for us? :)
-
''There have now been nearly 230 refugees released from onshore detention centres since December 2020 with the Morrison Government refusing to provide reasons as to why some people are released while others, in almost identical situations, remain in detention''
No increase in boat arrivals
-
There it IS. Send them to Rwanda and if they pass muster ..,. Feed water and house them for 5 years while they become acclimatized to the ways of the UK including training for jobs they might get lol
-
And another ........
''The home secretary has been accused of misleading parliament after a high court ruling revealed that unpublished parts of a controversial policy to push back migrant dinghies in the Channel said the tactic would not be used against asylum seekers''
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/22/priti-patel-accused-misleading-parliament-refugee-pushbacks
-
Latest is that the House of Lords passed the powers to export refugees to Rwanda, in defiance of the Refugees Convention to which the UK is a signatory:
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/ministers-ram-through-six-controversial-laws-last-minute-parliament-prorogues-queens-speech-1599189?ITO=newsnow
This goes through with Labour in the House of Lords choosing to abstain.
Chakrabati had to defy the whip to oppose:
https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1519572437104566272
Utterly disgraceful.
Now it is up to the legal challenge to make Patel obey the law.
-
The plane has not taken off ,wounder how much money was wasted on this ,It was a shocking idea in the first place
-
Estimated to be around ₤120 million paid to Rwanda + ₤500,000 est for the jet plus all the admin and security so far Rich, that's almost enough to keep a family of govt cronies from getting cold and hungry.
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/LBC/status/1536958701466099717
Job done.
What an utterly disgusting bunch we have running this f**king country.
-
Estimated to be around ₤120 million paid to Rwanda + ₤500,000 est for the jet plus all the admin and security so far Rich, that's almost enough to keep a family of govt cronies from getting cold and hungry.
Someone has taken a back hander for the amount of money been given to Rwanda
-
The real agenda here is to provide a justification for replacing the European Human Rights legislation with a watered down UK version that fits the government vision.
Next steps are a press campaign about "lefty lawyers" and "making our own decisions" to smooth the way for repressive restriction of rights.
The poor people on the sharp end of this are just pawns in the game.
-
What has the ECHR ever done for us
https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1537000419095879680
-
The real agenda here is to provide a justification for replacing the European Human Rights legislation with a watered down UK version that fits the government vision.
Next steps are a press campaign about "lefty lawyers" and "making our own decisions" to smooth the way for repressive restriction of rights.
The poor people on the sharp end of this are just pawns in the game.
You're giving them far too much credit Albie. The real agenda is just to stoke up the Culture War. They have f**k all to offer anyone, other than to say "We understand your (fabricated) anger."
-
Not giving them any credit at all, Billy.
The point of stoking up the culture wars is to promote an environment for policies that are sold as a solution to the problem they have created.
I have no doubt that this is an attempt to move the agenda to withdraw from the EHRC, set up by Churchill after WW2.
This response from Labour is just embarrassing:
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1537067008403066880?cxt=HHwWgMCy_ZyT4dQqAAAA
Why can't they just say "Yes, we will repeal this policy"......it really is that simple.
EDIT.
Kinnock has just told the BBC that Labour "will reverse the policy".
Good.....I hope he was defining the position of the Party, not giving a personal opinion.
-
Albie.
This put your mind at rest?
https://mobile.twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1537052385067016197
-
Meanwhile, here's a nasty Kitson demonstrating that he's also an ignorant Kitson.
https://mobile.twitter.com/kelvmackenzie/status/1536807489936703491
The ECHR is nothing to do with the EU. It was the brainchild of Winston Churchill as a way to prevent Governments arbitrarily abusing human rights.
-
BST,
Some good points from Cooper about what is wrong with the approach of Patel.
But she fails to say that Labour would rescind the policy......which is presumably why Kinnock was sent out afterwards to say just that, to clear up the obvious omission.
No comment on the plan to remove the UK from the EHRC, which the Tories have been talking up right on cue.
It is very important that Labour commit to remaining part of the EHRC, and do not allow the new default to be a diluted Human Rights Act which fails to protect workers rights or environmental standards.
So no, it does not put my mind at rest until those key issues are addressed...not yet!
-
Still. You won't be voting Labour and you don't think Labour will win in 2024, so it's a bit of an academic discussion.
-
That's right, personalize it when you don't have a valid point to make.
Would you vote Labour if the offer was inadequate....you told us you did not previously?
All I am saying is make the policy position clear, and do not let the Tories define the terms of the discussion.
Cooper fails to do that, and gives a critique without an alternative solution.....very poor politics.
Labour will not win in 24 without regaining Scottish seats, just my opinion.
If you think they will, explain how that will occur, give us the pathway.
A hung parliament is a possibility, if the Tories lose ground to opponents in the SE.
Many rivers to cross before a GE in 2024.
-
2024 will be a hung parliament. Then all the sleazy wheeling and dealing will start, to see who can sell the biggest amount of snake oil.
-
Still. You won't be voting Labour and you don't think Labour will win in 2024, so it's a bit of an academic discussion.
Did you say that to the people of Wakefield when you were canvassing there.
-
Scawsby I think you’re right it may well be a hung parliament
The problem then is who would you want to hold the balance. The SNP or the Lib Dems
-
Here's IDS proving yet again how irredeemably f**king useless IDS is.
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1538583330567999488
No IDS, asylum seekers who we ship off to Rwanda who then have their asylum claim upheld will NOT be returned to the UK under this agreement. They'll be left in Rwanda.
Truly frightening, this is. This man used to run one of the great political parties of the UK. and here, he is either lying to our faces, or admitting he is too f**king stupid to understand what he voted for in Parliament.
-
When did we adopt the American model of political recruitment? It's blatantly obvious we did so but I'm buggered if I know when.
BobG