Forums
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
PorcupineorPineapple
15 Apr 22 10:04
Joined:
Date Joined: 03 Dec 15
| Topic/replies: 14,458 | Blogger: PorcupineorPineapple's blog
(apols if covered in the other thread. Out yesterday and not reading all that).


But it's little more than distraction isn't it?


It's only for failed asylum seekers.
Doesn't apply to kids or parents.
Maximum capacity is 100 people, and may stretch to 300.
Going to cost a fortune per head.


Got to be very short odds on we send a single person there. Over 80% of asylum applications are approved anyway. Just wondering what this proposal does to deter anyone who thinks they have a genuine asylum claim. Only going to have the brexit effect and force a sudden up-turn (particularly now the weather's picking up) of numbers crossing in the next few weeks.

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 1 of 6  •  Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 227
By:
detraveller
When: 15 Apr 22 10:38
There was a deal with Libya about 4-5 years ago where the EU offered to train the Libyan costguard, and build refugee centres in the coastal area. This meant the EU was given access all the way to Libya, and in the next few months more refugees started arriving than before. In short, the govts were involved in the refugee crisis, but pointing that out made me a 'muslim apologist' according to many here.

While Rwanda seems to be a strange choice, anyone who thinks this will work is an idiot. These people don't fear death(many die along the route but are never documented). If you don't fear death in pursuit of a better life, how does being sent to Rwanda act as a deterrant when you've got a whole lot of immigration lawyers ready to defend you for free in the UK?

Meanwhile people think the govt really can't control illegal traffic in the channel. Do you really buy that?
By:
A_T
When: 15 Apr 22 11:01
it's just Boris throwing treats to the knuckle-draggers trapped in their cage of ignorance
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 15 Apr 22 11:53
In some ways finding a place for failed asylum seekers
would be a good idea.

Rwanda is an odd choice but they've spotted a gap
in the market.

When the dictator gets kicked out and the new guy
starts on the Rwanda first stuff,... What's happens?

Do they end up getting kicked out like Patel's parents
from near by Uganda?

Who takes em in then?
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 15 Apr 22 11:56
£1.5 billion at £1 million a pop suggests
plans are for more than 300 transportations.
By:
barstool
When: 15 Apr 22 12:05
For an over crowded countery like Britain it makes sense. Going back to a young nation on their own continent makes sense. It will discourage travel across dangerous waters and save lives. As long as it is well monitored on the Rwanden side, and it sounds like economic investment is being channeled there, it must be a good thing. Probably come as a relief to lots of people log jammed and locked in sorting centres here.
By:
politicspunter
When: 15 Apr 22 12:09
Removing a hundred people doesn't make the UK particularly less over crowded. Who knows what country they originally came from? What makes you think they all come from Africa? I was under the impression their original country of origin would be immaterial.
By:
PorcupineorPineapple
When: 15 Apr 22 12:10
...but apart from that...
By:
thegiggilo
When: 15 Apr 22 12:13
It was an Israeli idea,they sent 4,000 people over there who could possibly have guessed that the tories woildv'e got something as racist from the original aparthied state,and it was a complete failure..
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 15 Apr 22 12:21
Rwandans will take cash, they know the migrants will
migrate away from rwanda.

Send more migrants and another 1.5 billion


Who knows, the Rwandans might do a nice flight to
Dunkirk with a dinghy hoyyed in, would be good
for business.
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 15 Apr 22 12:25
This isn’t the first time that the Kagame regime has signed up for this type of agreement. Along with Uganda, Rwanda previously had a similar arrangement with Israel. This saw 4,000 Sudanese and Eritrean refugees deported to these states between 2014 and 2018. They were provided with $3.5k in cash but given no legal status in the country, and were basically left to fend for themselves after they arrived at the airport. The vast majority of the deportees simply used the money to pay people smugglers in order to then make the journey to Europe.

Lol
By:
dustybin
When: 15 Apr 22 12:25
Arn’t they planning for successful applicants to be settled in Rwanda?

The Economist gave some figures a few months ago.
The British arn’t accommodating really at all, they want strict border control.
Ukrainian refugees are an exception, but that will pass and they revert back to strict opinions
They didn’t want at all Pakistani refugees from the 1970s some killing that went on, and were only slightly more accommodating to afghans because the feeling was some of them were owed something after their corrupt government flopped over and USA couldn’t be arsed to continue funding failure.

It’s a bit rich calling such politics as ‘populist’, it’s a constant that the majority of the public don’t want immigration in any of it’s ruses.
By:
tobermory
When: 15 Apr 22 12:26
Other than the things mentioned by Porcupine, gays will be exempted from Rwandan  camps, because while it is not illegal, being gay 'is frowned upon' Laugh

When they get off the dinghies they will be mincing down the beach like a bunch of John Inmans.
By:
politicspunter
When: 15 Apr 22 12:30

Apr 15, 2022 -- 12:26PM, tobermory wrote:


Other than the things mentioned by Porcupine, gays will be exempted from Rwandan

By:
politicspunter
When: 15 Apr 22 12:30
John Inman Laugh
By:
tobermory
When: 15 Apr 22 12:34
In terms of 'it's only for failed asylum seekers', surely the point would be that their claim would be considered in Rwanda, not here.

So it would have a deterrent effect. No hotel and dole money, just a flight to east Africa.

That the majority of asylum claims are approved, or at least given 'leave to remain' is likely because we have no way to get rid of them at present, rather than that the claims are genuine.

I don't believe it will happen in any meaningful way though as it is an open goal for legal challenges on behalf of any individual that refuses to go , because if HRA, Refugee Convention ....
By:
Mubey25
When: 15 Apr 22 12:43
Benefits leeches and fish food the lot of them.
By:
Stickywickets
When: 15 Apr 22 12:44
You could make a good gameshow, dinghys, criminals, mines.
A bit like the running man
By:
Stickywickets
When: 15 Apr 22 12:44
Where the **** is Edward Longshanks when we need himCry
By:
casemoney
When: 15 Apr 22 13:12
If they go to Rwanda they wont be coming back here Regardless ,They will be offered work Etc over there Plain
By:
casemoney
When: 15 Apr 22 13:15
The word is Other Countries in the EU to follow this kind of Strategy .Or they would like to

Being part of the EU it might not be possible ..
By:
tobermory
When: 15 Apr 22 13:26
It was Denmark who started I think Case.
By:
tobermory
When: 15 Apr 22 13:37
The legal issues will not be EU, rather the Refugee Convention and the Human Rights Act..

You can argue - as the Tories will - that sending people to Rwanda is not going to breach those, but if a judge disagrees it will be game over for this plan.

Unless the Tories are going to take us out of those agreements. Which they should do but will be scared of being called 'nasty'.
By:
Stickywickets
When: 15 Apr 22 13:41
As I said before, new laws need to be written ASAP to prevent these people having Habeas corpus in the first place
They need to be treated as non entities
By:
dustybin
When: 15 Apr 22 14:06
Denmark actually went as far as dropping pirates off in international waters with enough food and water to make it to shore and pointed them in the direction to paddle.
By:
Stickywickets
When: 15 Apr 22 14:08
Why don't we just turn them around & deal with the legal ramifications??
By:
LoyalHoncho
When: 15 Apr 22 16:08
mincing down the beach  Laugh
A new phrase enters the British vernacular.
By:
LoyalHoncho
When: 15 Apr 22 16:11
On the why front though why don;t we stop appeasing the Saudis and the Syrians and the Russians of this world when they wage murdering destruction on the defenceless?  Stop the problem at source?
By:
tobermory
When: 15 Apr 22 17:19
^
That's what we were trying to do last 20 years

Get rid of The Taliban, Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad.. and all those countries will become stable democracies so there won't be any refugees wanting to get out of there.....
By:
LoyalHoncho
When: 15 Apr 22 20:25
Assad?  We let him and his murderous Russian allies do as he wanted.  We voted in parliament not to get involved!
So much for our "democracy"!  As for the other three you mention they were all disastrous.  We walked away from the Taliban, we savaged Iraq when they had no threat.  And as far as I can recall Libyans rose up and did for Gaddafi themselves.
The result and consequence of each and every one of these walkaways were masses of displaced people wanting into any other country, particularly ours.
By:
LoyalHoncho
When: 15 Apr 22 20:27
As for Rwanda it's not that long ago when we took in asylum seekers from them, now we plan tp send thousands over there?  It;s absolute madness.  The lunatics are in charge of the asylum!  So to speak.
By:
tobermory
When: 15 Apr 22 21:23
Obama wanted to intervene against Assad before Russia came in on his side.

If that had happened ISIS would have taken most of the country and might still have it now.
By:
tobermory
When: 15 Apr 22 21:24
Gaddafi couldn't beat the rebels because NATO was an airforce for them.
By:
dustybin
When: 16 Apr 22 09:02
I doubt there will be too much in the way of appeasement in much of the Middle East once oil loses its usefulness.

The oil crisis came and empowered them as they nationalised what had been until then a western resource grab.
Here oil gave thatcher the tools to eradicate the unions and a whole lifestyle was built upon it from chemicals to products to power.

Saudi Arabia are attempting to liberalise in part and recognise their GDP will crash, but that fight will turn inward fast where Islam fights Islam instead of the west.
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 16 Apr 22 13:38
It emerged on the News last night that Priti Patel had not priced the Rwandan experiment, no one has checked the legality of it, or the practicality of it, no one can say what would happen if people refused to be transported to Rwanda...
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 16 Apr 22 13:39
But but but...
By:
xmoneyx
When: 16 Apr 22 13:53
48k refugees a year cross channel

rwuanda has 100 romms

maths are fcuked Excited
By:
xmoneyx
When: 16 Apr 22 13:53
rooms
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 16 Apr 22 13:57
Out bid the eu for the rooms, lol

1 million per refugee

Rwandans happy to build another 200 rooms

Lol, why not at those prices.
By:
casemoney
When: 16 Apr 22 14:03
Gaddafi couldn't beat the rebels because NATO was an airforce for them.

Yes Spot on , the Whole World was Roooting for the Bengazi Springers  ,A fine mob of Gangsters and Terrorists ,Look at the state of the Gaff now , after the Progressive west stepped in  ...
Page 1 of 6  •  Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com