VISIT RWANDA

Jaffa_The_Hut said:
That processing centre where they will all be staying looks the Dogs bollocks.

Separate bedrooms, on suite toilet/shower room, lounge, Kitchen, TV, Wifi.

Beats any barge hands down in fact it’s a higher standard than some hotels I’ve stayed in over the years.

Indeed crack on Rishi lad. 👍
Click to expand...
Something that's rarely mentioned, but how much is it costing GB to pay for the upkeep those being sent to Rwanda?
I'm sure we are paying for them to live there, but how much?
Rishi keeps very quiet about that side of 'The Deal'.
 
Davepick said:
Something that's rarely mentioned, but how much is it costing GB to pay for the upkeep those being sent to Rwanda?
I'm sure we are paying for them to live there, but how much?
Rishi keeps very quiet about that side of 'The Deal'.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that’s been divulged, that’s if we are paying ongoing costs. The whole purpose is twofold, reduce the cost of housing and keeping them here and deterring others from coming here.

Interesting to note that Ireland is concerned that instead of landing in England, they’ll land in Ireland.

A couple of points spring to mind; the usual one, they’re in a safe country already; France, so why take the risk, second, I’m sure their plan will be to cross the border into N. I, and from there come to England.
 
Davepick said:
Something that's rarely mentioned, but how much is it costing GB to pay for the upkeep those being sent to Rwanda?
I'm sure we are paying for them to live there, but how much?
Rishi keeps very quiet about that side of 'The Deal'.
Click to expand...
The total cost is £540m for the first 300 that go there, or £1.8m each.

Just a bit of loose change for the Cons - the equivalent of a couple of Michelle Mones.
 
JJpool said:
The official policy is to take them back, after watching the full interview, it was in response to her throwing loads of hypotheticals, saying if their boat goes down and they get given a new dinghy and keep jumping out or use a knife to cut the boat they're given etc.

Tbh anyone doing that it's basically a version of natural selection isn't it? As there's no guarantee they'd survive and that the border force would even be able to get to them in time. Anyone doing that to the boat is basically an attempted murderer and therefore definitely shouldn't be allowed in.

Just pick them up and take them back.

However it does raise an interesting thought experiment, to flip things a little with a few hypotheticals.

You can't always give in to people who use harming themselves as a way to get what they want.

If someone is trying to break into your house, he says he has a right to live there too. If you ket him in he stays forever. You refuse so he climbs onto the roof and threatens to jump off unless you let him in.

Do you let him in to save his life? Or do you lock the door and let him die to look after yourself?
Click to expand...
I would call the police and tell them that he needs counselling, medical help or restraining.
 
JJpool said:
I suspect.... that you've just typed a load of old bollocks 😄
Click to expand...
I actually - as always - did a spell check and corrected 'road'. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to have made the final edition. If, however, you don't understand the Biblical allusion well, more fool you.
 
Davepick said:
Something that's rarely mentioned, but how much is it costing GB to pay for the upkeep those being sent to Rwanda?
I'm sure we are paying for them to live there, but how much?
Rishi keeps very quiet about that side of 'The Deal'.
Click to expand...
I don't think there's an ongoing cost, I think it's a simple one-off payment to keep them.

I doubt that the Rwandans are putting them up in hotels.
 
Lost Seasider said:
I don't think there's an ongoing cost, I think it's a simple one-off payment to keep them.

I doubt that the Rwandans are putting them up in hotels.
Click to expand...
I guess non of us know where they are going to be put up, as the Rwanda Government have already sold most of the houses Cruella boasted were going to used to house them, to locals.

Did I mention before Cruella did a lot of work in Rwanda as a solicitor? Would love the standards committee to look and see whether any of her previous contacts have beneffitted from the millions.
 
As Micheál Martin, Ireland's deputy PM said, "the Rwanda scheme will be entirely ineffective at deterring illegal immigration. The sort of knee-jerk reaction like the Rwanda policy, in my view, isn’t going to really do anything to deal with the issue."

As Mr Martin also said, "the spectre of being removed to the African country is already causing hundreds of UK-based asylum seekers to leave the UK and cross into Ireland in a pre-emptive bid to evade."

Make up your mind Mr Martin, is it entirely ineffective at deterring illegal immigration to the UK or is it already deterring immigrants from staying in the UK?
 
tommytwojags said:
As Micheál Martin, Ireland's deputy PM said, "the Rwanda scheme will be entirely ineffective at deterring illegal immigration. The sort of knee-jerk reaction like the Rwanda policy, in my view, isn’t going to really do anything to deal with the issue."

As Mr Martin also said, "the spectre of being removed to the African country is already causing hundreds of UK-based asylum seekers to leave the UK and cross into Ireland in a pre-emptive bid to evade."

Make up your mind Mr Martin, is it entirely ineffective at deterring illegal immigration to the UK or is it already deterring immigrants from staying in the UK?
Click to expand...
As it hits home it'll deter some, but I think he's also using it as an excuse for what's happening over there under his leadership.


Henry Bolton claims it may be another piece of legislation passed a while back, that I admit I wasn't aware of.
 
The boat people ain’t stupid. As soon as they get onto English shores they realise that our separation from the EU might limit opportunities, so they hop onto a ferry to Northern Ireland with not much opposition. From there they can simply drive down the road and cross the unpoliced borders into Eire.

If they then apply for asylum in Eire and eventually get the travel docs they need they have the best of all worlds - unrestricted travel within the EU and complete freedom to travel to the UK under the separate UK-Eire travel arrangements. So good that I might see if I have any chance of applying to Eire myself. Even better if you are a published author, musician or artist as all such earned income is tax-free in Eire.
 
Last edited:
tommytwojags said:
As Micheál Martin, Ireland's deputy PM said, "the Rwanda scheme will be entirely ineffective at deterring illegal immigration. The sort of knee-jerk reaction like the Rwanda policy, in my view, isn’t going to really do anything to deal with the issue."

As Mr Martin also said, "the spectre of being removed to the African country is already causing hundreds of UK-based asylum seekers to leave the UK and cross into Ireland in a pre-emptive bid to evade."

Make up your mind Mr Martin, is it entirely ineffective at deterring illegal immigration to the UK or is it already deterring immigrants from staying in the UK?
Click to expand...
Probably neither, most likely it's asylum/benefit shopping, with Ireland, and their access to the common market, seen as a softer touch than us.
 
tommytwojags said:
As Micheál Martin, Ireland's deputy PM said, "the Rwanda scheme will be entirely ineffective at deterring illegal immigration. The sort of knee-jerk reaction like the Rwanda policy, in my view, isn’t going to really do anything to deal with the issue."

As Mr Martin also said, "the spectre of being removed to the African country is already causing hundreds of UK-based asylum seekers to leave the UK and cross into Ireland in a pre-emptive bid to evade."

Make up your mind Mr Martin, is it entirely ineffective at deterring illegal immigration to the UK or is it already deterring immigrants from staying in the UK?
Click to expand...
The Irish prime minister wants to pass legislation to return asylum seekers back to the U.K, it’ll be interesting to see the reaction.
 
It's hard to believe that Ireland think they can send migrants to the UK against their will. At least the UK have an agreement with Rwanda. Regardless of the enforced deportation of migrants, there is no way that the EU could condone a member state forcibly sending them kicking and screaming to another country. Human rights and all that.
 
It just shows that migration is a problem all over Europe and not just in the UK as some would have you believe.
Italy are in dispute with France over migrants crossing the border by walking down a motorway and camping out in the woods etc.
It's a European problem and one that should be tackled by Europe as a whole. If only there were an organisation that could coordinate our efforts as sovereign states ...
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
It just shows that migration is a problem all over Europe and not just in the UK as some would have you believe.
Italy are in dispute with France over migrants crossing the border by walking down a motorway and camping out in the woods etc.
It's a European problem and one that should be tackled by Europe as a whole. If only there were an organisation that could coordinate our efforts as sovereign states ...
Click to expand...
Well the EU seems to still exist, but is completely incapable of doing what you suggest it should be doing, and in fact may be a substantial part of the problem, so what sort of organization did you have in mind?
 
Lost Seasider said:
Well the EU seems to still exist, but is completely incapable of doing what you suggest it should be doing, and in fact may be a substantial part of the problem, so what sort of organization did you have in mind?
Click to expand...
This penchant you have for starting with your opinion and then working backwards to twist inconvenient facts into shape is quite entertaining.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Probably neither, most likely it's asylum/benefit shopping, with Ireland, and their access to the common market, seen as a softer touch than us.
Click to expand...
I'm sure I was told on here that there isn't a softer touch than us.

What's asylum/benefit shopping? As someone who worked for DWP and its predecessors, I'm not familiar with it.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
This penchant you have for starting with your opinion and then working backwards to twist inconvenient facts into shape is quite entertaining.
Click to expand...
Please clarify for me:
  1. does the EU still exist;
  2. is it doing an effective job in tackling the migration problem;
  3. is the Schengen area and lack of border controls a significant part of the problem;
  4. what sort of "organisation that could coordinate our efforts as sovereign states" do you have in mind?
Thanks in advance.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Well the EU seems to still exist, but is completely incapable of doing what you suggest it should be doing, and in fact may be a substantial part of the problem, so what sort of organization did you have in mind?
Click to expand...
France Germany and Italy (the big 3) insisted that the EU member countries would except these illegal immigrants long before we left and when most of the other smaller nations were against it.

Now these 3 are all moaning they’ve taken more than their fair share FFS.

You just couldn’t make this sort of stuff up you really couldn’t.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Why do you think they're crossing over in small boats from France in the first place?
Click to expand...
Not for benefits. There is a two year embargo on anyone who hasn't been here before or away for over two years, unless they come from somewhere with reciprocal arrangements. The Habitual Residency Test.

Just because you read it in the Daily Mail, or in a Tory pamphlet, doesn't make it so.
 
Wizaard said:
I'm sure I was told on here that there isn't a softer touch than us.

What's asylum/benefit shopping? As someone who worked for DWP and its predecessors, I'm not familiar with it.
Click to expand...
Housing, benifits, schooling, I even read the other day some of the illegal immigrants have been given NHS dentist care yet hundreds of thousands in this country can’t even get a sniff of NHS dentist.

Wasn’t the Daily Mail either before you reply.
 
Jaffa_The_Hut said:
Housing, benifits, schooling, I even read the other day some of the illegal immigrants have been given NHS dentist care yet hundreds of thousands in this country can’t even get a sniff of NHS dentist care.
Click to expand...
Again, don't believe everything you read.

They don't get benefits. End of.

You also claimed they were all young men. They don't need schooling.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Please clarify for me:
  1. does the EU still exist;
  2. is it doing an effective job in tackling the migration problem;
  3. is the Schengen area and lack of border controls a significant part of the problem;
  4. what sort of "organisation that could coordinate our efforts as sovereign states" do you have in mind?
Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
I think the main facts you are conveniently ignoring are that the EU does indeed exist, it does try to coordinate its approach to these major strategic problems, and our ability to influence it is massively diminished by our decision in 2016 to leave it.

We are now reaping what the 52% - and the politicians who lied to them again and again - sowed.

As for tackling the migration problem, as you so glibly put it, the underlying reasons for it are many and varied and are driven to varying extents by war, climate change and crippling economic inequality. All of which cannot be tackled by individual states alone, unless they are determined to fail. If you think migration from South to North is bad now, it is likely to be much, much worse in 10-20 years time.

As things stand, we are merely reacting to events, not shaping them. Three word policy slogans aren't likely to help, nor is the bone-headed insularity that characterises the Government of the day.
 
Wizaard said:
Again, don't believe everything you read.

They don't get benefits. End of.

You also claimed they were all young men. They don't need schooling.
Click to expand...
The people who are on that barge in Weymouth get free taxis and free cinema and other venue free tickets if that is not a benefit? what actually do you class a benefit actually being?
The people of Weymouth don’t qualify for any of these so what do think a benefit actually is if others don’t get it?
 
Last edited:
Wizaard said:
Again, don't believe everything you read.

They don't get benefits. End of.

You also claimed they were all young men. They don't need schooling.
Click to expand...
So how do they afford to eat, who pays for the hotels etc?

I don't think you're telling the full story.
 
Lost Seasider said:
So how do they afford to eat, who pays for the hotels etc?

I don't think you're telling the full story.
Click to expand...
3 square meals a day when staying in holding centres the same when they move to hotels or other housing yet we have thousands on the street every night of the year cold and starving and begging for food/money.

Yet people wonder by we have issues with these people coming here .
 
basilrobbie3 said:
I think the main facts you are conveniently ignoring are that the EU does indeed exist, it does try to coordinate its approach to these major strategic problems, and our ability to influence it is massively diminished by our decision in 2016 to leave it.
Click to expand...
What you're ignoring is that the post I was responding to described it as a pan-European problem, that's affecting many countries that are still in the EU, and our decision to leave has no effect whatsoever on the EU's inability to respond to the problem in an effective way.
 
Lost Seasider said:
What you're ignoring is that the post I was responding to described it as a pan-European problem, that's affecting many countries that are still in the EU, and our decision to leave has no effect whatsoever on the EU's inability to respond to the problem in an effective way.
Click to expand...
🤣If you believe that ....
 
Jaffa_The_Hut said:
The people who are on that barge in Weymouth get free taxis and free cinema and other venue free tickets if that is not a benefit? what actually do you class a benefit actually being?
The people of Weymouth don’t qualify for any of these so what do think a benefit actually is if others don’t get it?
Click to expand...
Do they really? Have you proof other than another lie in the Daily Mail, like today's front page designed to divide.
 
Wizaard said:
Do they really? Have you proof other than another lie in the Daily Mail, like today's front page designed to divide.
Click to expand...
You seem to have this thing with the Daily mail? There’s about another 10 national newspaper out there the one I read it in wasn’t the Daily Mail as I’ve already said.

The news about the Taxis and entrance tickets to cinemas and theme parks was actually on the BBC national news at the time the first immigrants moved in so again it could be fake news again I suppose. 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
JJpool said:
Again, if you look at post 11 I've said that.

Your agenda driven attacks aren't even making any sense to what I said.

There's a real lack of actually reading the posts from the usual suspects here.

You seem determined to start an argument about a point I don't even feel strongly about, given you know I want to vote Reform, who have a different idea altogether.

But the point stands about the article, in that it makes no sense what the UN said, that because there's been a tragedy we should stand down a policy designed to deter.

Where's my lack of compassion? I don't want anyone to be dying in tragedies, that's why we need to deter crossings and as for people coming over here, they're coming from a safe country, not a war zone, so they shouldn't be making that trip.
Click to expand...
Yet the Vice Chair of Reform, the party of your choice, in answer to the question 'Would you leave refugees to drown in the Channel?' Replied 'Absolutely', and has doubled down on it since.

Is that acceptable from our politicians? Especially from one who is of immigrant descent?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top