|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2023 11:52:12 GMT
Seems that some are more than happy to spend £8m per day, or £2.9b per year, housing illegals immigrants in hotel accommodation and putting enormous pressure on our public services. But none offer any alternative measures to stop the flood across the channel. My preference would be to spend that money on staff to process the claims, clear the backlog and allow those who have a legal right to be here to start contributing to society and those public services they’re using. I’d also not be opposed to work in partnership with France and the EU via a joint police force to target the smuggling gangs - not the individuals trying to get across. And then put legislation in place to target the banks that enable the cash flow for illegal immigration. Oh, but that would be targeting the wealthy and we can’t have that. If more legislation was put in to target whitewashing practices of money laundering, so many issues in organized crime would be reduced. Will it happen? Nope.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2023 11:56:32 GMT
www.learnsignal.com/blog/hsbc-money-laundering/This is a nice example of HSBC, headquartered in London, happily enabling money laundering because they can skim off the top. Not one person who knew about it went to prison (what a shock).
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Dec 7, 2023 12:43:37 GMT
Seems that some are more than happy to spend £8m per day, or £2.9b per year, housing illegals immigrants in hotel accommodation and putting enormous pressure on our public services. But none offer any alternative measures to stop the flood across the channel. You need a deterrent to stop people from doing the crossings. Something which makes them feel its not worth the risk. This isn't just my words, it's what Sunak has said himself. We used to have said deterrent which was named "The Dub agreement". This allowed you to return illegal immigrants to a safe country they previously stood foot in. This is why before brexit we didn't have as many small boat crossings. The post brexit deal which Boris Johnsons brokered was a shambles though and this is one of many things overlooked. Once that deterrent disappeared, the number of people crossing the channel on small boats grew massively. In addition the home office hasn't been processing the asylum requests at a manageable rate which is what's contributing to all these hotel costs. The who make alot more money from hosting asylum seekers than they do guests. Call me a cynic but I can see why the tories have made little effort to work through the backlog because those hotels are lining the pockets of their donors. There are solutions out there but to me it feels like the tories don't actually want a solution to something they and their donors profit from. We've had 13 years of "tough on immigration talk" and net migration has went from 200k to 750k per year in that time. Those numbers don't suggest this is a party that's ever been interested in tackling immigration. This is a party which enables immigration and profits from it. Rwanda was always going to fail and many people have said that for over 12 months. We all knew it was smoke and mirrors and just another tory three word slogan which is all talk no action. Surprise surprise a year on and it's an utter failure like many people said it would be. There's solutions out there but you need a party which is interested in representing the people rather than the businesses to implement a party. I'm sure all those big businesses supporting the tories would much prefer the problem not to be tackled as it enables them to employ staff for 20% less than what British people get paid. Cheap labour means more profits. The Tory party is the party of big business not the people. Sooner people realise it the better. The numbers speak for themselves. An interesting post. But is there real evidence that "the vast majority of the hotels used for asylum seekers are from conservative party donors".
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Dec 7, 2023 12:55:39 GMT
Seems that some are more than happy to spend £8m per day, or £2.9b per year, housing illegals immigrants in hotel accommodation and putting enormous pressure on our public services. But none offer any alternative measures to stop the flood across the channel. thise figures... what I do know for sure is the money we have spent so far & god knows how much more we will continue to spend on this insane Rwanda plan (with zero persons gone there) is even more stupid
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Dec 7, 2023 13:01:59 GMT
You need a deterrent to stop people from doing the crossings. Something which makes them feel its not worth the risk. This isn't just my words, it's what Sunak has said himself. We used to have said deterrent which was named "The Dub agreement". This allowed you to return illegal immigrants to a safe country they previously stood foot in. This is why before brexit we didn't have as many small boat crossings. The post brexit deal which Boris Johnsons brokered was a shambles though and this is one of many things overlooked. Once that deterrent disappeared, the number of people crossing the channel on small boats grew massively. In addition the home office hasn't been processing the asylum requests at a manageable rate which is what's contributing to all these hotel costs. The who make alot more money from hosting asylum seekers than they do guests. Call me a cynic but I can see why the tories have made little effort to work through the backlog because those hotels are lining the pockets of their donors. There are solutions out there but to me it feels like the tories don't actually want a solution to something they and their donors profit from. We've had 13 years of "tough on immigration talk" and net migration has went from 200k to 750k per year in that time. Those numbers don't suggest this is a party that's ever been interested in tackling immigration. This is a party which enables immigration and profits from it. Rwanda was always going to fail and many people have said that for over 12 months. We all knew it was smoke and mirrors and just another tory three word slogan which is all talk no action. Surprise surprise a year on and it's an utter failure like many people said it would be. There's solutions out there but you need a party which is interested in representing the people rather than the businesses to implement a party. I'm sure all those big businesses supporting the tories would much prefer the problem not to be tackled as it enables them to employ staff for 20% less than what British people get paid. Cheap labour means more profits. The Tory party is the party of big business not the people. Sooner people realise it the better. The numbers speak for themselves. An interesting post. But is there real evidence that "the vast majority of the hotels used for asylum seekers are from conservative party donors". bylinetimes.com/2023/10/13/meet-the-man-making-26m-a-year-from-the-uks-dysfunctional-asylum-system/www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/politics/an-underhand-covert-move-your-reaction-to-asylum-seekers-being-moved-into-blackpools-metropole-hotel-3399174Britannia hotels another where there CEO Alex Langsham is a tory donor. Plenty of evidence. Just like the PPE contracts during covid too. Just conservatives siphoning tax payers money into their friends pockets. And plenty of that money has went into the hands of the Media too which is why they don't report on it because they're getting little brown envelopes too. Anytime the tories spend big you should follow the cash because 9 time out of 10 that wasted money is lining the pockets of a very wealthy conservative donor.
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Dec 7, 2023 13:10:54 GMT
Can't we just deport 1 yank to Rowardennan nane id borris sure he'll feel at home with the oppression brutal government and corruption 😁😁
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Dec 7, 2023 13:26:26 GMT
Also for what it's worth I try my best to judge labour by the same standards as tories and I'm just as critical of Starmer and some of his decisions. It worries me he may be following a similar trajectory. Giving labour donations went from around 700k to 12 million in the last few years. I wouldn't be surprised if some of his u turns are due to donations received.
Unfortunately British politics are very much for sale these days. I'm sure the forest Green chairman who recently started supporting labour will see some big contracts his direction if labour get elected. And I'm pretty sure the big donations received from Israel lobbyists has affected Labour's stance on Israel too.
Crooks.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Dec 7, 2023 13:27:01 GMT
Seems that some are more than happy to spend £8m per day, or £2.9b per year, housing illegals immigrants in hotel accommodation and putting enormous pressure on our public services. But none offer any alternative measures to stop the flood across the channel. Which on the surface would appear to be a compelling reason to process the 170,000 Asylum Seekers in Hotels or other accommodation If granted Asylum they would no longer be entitled to Hotel or any other accommodation If their application was denied they could be placed in a Detention Centre awaiting Deportation Of course that 170,000 has now been reduced because the Home Office said yesterday that they have "lost" 17,000 or 10% Maybe they didn't like the accommodation.... or they had other reasons
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Dec 7, 2023 13:58:52 GMT
Seems that some are more than happy to spend £8m per day, or £2.9b per year, housing illegals immigrants in hotel accommodation and putting enormous pressure on our public services. But none offer any alternative measures to stop the flood across the channel. We used to have said deterrent which was named "The Dub agreement". This allowed you to return illegal immigrants to a safe country they previously stood foot in.
This is incorrect. The Dublin Agreement allowed a Country to return an Asylum Seeker ONLY if they had made an Asylum Claim in another EU Country, successful or not. It wasn't particularly successful in UK because guess why .... a returns claim to send an Asylum Seeker back to another Country had to be made within 6 months of their arrival.... a rather simple task apparently beyond the capabilities of the Home Office considering every Asylum Seeker Applicants fingerprints were placed on a Central Database (no longer available to UK after Brexit)
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Dec 7, 2023 14:53:15 GMT
We used to have said deterrent which was named "The Dub agreement". This allowed you to return illegal immigrants to a safe country they previously stood foot in.
This is incorrect. The Dublin Agreement allowed a Country to return an Asylum Seeker ONLY if they had made an Asylum Claim in another EU Country, successful or not. It wasn't particularly successful in UK because guess why .... a returns claim to send an Asylum Seeker back to another Country had to be made within 6 months of their arrival.... a rather simple task apparently beyond the capabilities of the Home Office considering every Asylum Seeker Applicants fingerprints were placed on a Central Database (no longer available to UK after Brexit) The European Parliament notes that in practice, however, the most frequently applied criteria is irregular entry. The application of that criteria means that the Member State through which the asylum-seeker first entered the EU is responsible for examining their asylum claim. Source- commonslibrary.parliament.uk/what-is-the-dublin-iii-regulation-will-it-be-affected-by-brexit/Also my point is that while it wasn't often used, it acted as a deterrent. Now it no longer applies to the UK it is no longer a deterrent. Hence the rise in small boat crossings. In 2022 Germany used it for 70k outgoing asylum seeker requests and France used it for around 45k. Source - ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Statistics_on_countries_responsible_for_asylum_applications_(Dublin_Regulation)
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Dec 7, 2023 14:55:36 GMT
Also for what it's worth I try my best to judge labour by the same standards as tories and I'm just as critical of Starmer and some of his decisions. It worries me he may be following a similar trajectory. Giving labour donations went from around 700k to 12 million in the last few years. I wouldn't be surprised if some of his u turns are due to donations received. Unfortunately British politics are very much for sale these days. I'm sure the forest Green chairman who recently started supporting labour will see some big contracts his direction if labour get elected. And I'm pretty sure the big donations received from Israel lobbyists has affected Labour's stance on Israel too. Crooks. Ironically Labour doesn't need to do this, it chooses to do so. Under Corbyn Labour raised record amounts of money but contrast in 2018 labour funding from private donations was £700,000 so far this year Labour has raised £12M from private donations while Party Membership has fallen by 170,000 www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/22/labour-given-10m-more-than-tories-last-year-says-electoral-commissionIt obvious to most that Labour will lead the next administration, big business want to get onboard to grease the path, money buys access and influence the ordinary punter doesn't have which makes a mockery of Democracy It's harder for Ministers to propose Legislation which affects your mate who has just taken you to a Corporate Beano, Sporting Event, Music Concert, Dinner etc. It's hardly surprising that many of Labour's more Socialist Policies have been watered down in recent months. The Establishment know that the best way to neuter policies that restrict them making even more money is to invite Law makers into the tent and introduce them to all the goodies they could enjoy if they toe the line There are now a plethora of fulltime Labour "Special Advisors" seconded and paid for by Lobby Companies whose sole business existence is to get Wealthy Corporations and Individuals access to people of influence Merry-go-round has been mentioned today in a different context
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Dec 7, 2023 15:57:20 GMT
This is incorrect. The Dublin Agreement allowed a Country to return an Asylum Seeker ONLY if they had made an Asylum Claim in another EU Country, successful or not. It wasn't particularly successful in UK because guess why .... a returns claim to send an Asylum Seeker back to another Country had to be made within 6 months of their arrival.... a rather simple task apparently beyond the capabilities of the Home Office considering every Asylum Seeker Applicants fingerprints were placed on a Central Database (no longer available to UK after Brexit) The European Parliament notes that in practice, however, the most frequently applied criteria is irregular entry. The application of that criteria means that the Member State through which the asylum-seeker first entered the EU is responsible for examining their asylum claim. Source- commonslibrary.parliament.uk/what-is-the-dublin-iii-regulation-will-it-be-affected-by-brexit/Also my point is that while it wasn't often used, it acted as a deterrent. Now it no longer applies to the UK it is no longer a deterrent. Hence the rise in small boat crossings. In 2022 Germany used it for 70k outgoing asylum seeker requests and France used it for around 45k. Source - ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Statistics_on_countries_responsible_for_asylum_applications_(Dublin_Regulation)Article 31 of the Refugee Convention which every EU Country and the UK currently.... places no obligation on an Asylum Seeker to make an Application in the first Country. This and other Tropes are trotted out at frequent intervals including by Politicians but are entirely incorrect The reason Asylum Seekers now use small boats is that using UK Government Money the whole Port of Calais was fortified beginning in late 2016 such that it's now almost impossible to enter. Border Patrol have also intensified checks on Lorries, Trains and Ferries. Criminal Gangs do still use Lorries but the price of a "Ticket" is much more than the price of a "Ticket" on a Boat. In 2018 there were 539 individuals who crossed on Boats www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/20/work-calais-wall-refugees-lorries-ukUndoubtedly the numbers making the trip have increased but what has mainly changed is the choice of "Transport" which is much more visible. I'm well aware Countries like Germany and France successfully used the Dublin Agreement which was my point about the ineptitude of the Home Office. So in effect this ineptitude was no deterrent at all.
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Dec 7, 2023 16:58:21 GMT
Don't be drawn in by the tories Iver the next few months remember what they are is in there name CON cervatives
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Dec 8, 2023 6:40:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by knype on Dec 8, 2023 6:52:10 GMT
Everyone could be defined as a key worker ffs And you have to speculate to accumulate
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Dec 8, 2023 7:13:38 GMT
Everyone could be defined as a key worker ffs And you have to speculate to accumulate But that was the government's own description of nurses!
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Dec 8, 2023 7:30:28 GMT
Everyone could be defined as a key worker ffs And you have to speculate to accumulate Our Prime Minister certainly isn’t. What is your preference? £240m on nothing, or pay rises for nurses or care home workers?
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Dec 8, 2023 7:34:03 GMT
Everyone could be defined as a key worker ffs And you have to speculate to accumulate Our Prime Minister certainly isn’t. What is your preference? £240m on nothing, or pay rises for nurses or care home workers? Another £50 million next year too ffs! Bizarre what some people will happily ignore and what triggers others to get wound up about.
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Dec 8, 2023 8:29:46 GMT
Our Prime Minister certainly isn’t. What is your preference? £240m on nothing, or pay rises for nurses or care home workers? Another £50 million next year too ffs! Bizarre what some people will happily ignore and what triggers others to get wound up about. Worth watching pmqs this week kier made same points
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Dec 8, 2023 8:30:13 GMT
Our Prime Minister certainly isn’t. What is your preference? £240m on nothing, or pay rises for nurses or care home workers? Another £50 million next year too ffs! Bizarre what some people will happily ignore and what triggers others to get wound up about. This Rwanda scheme is the biggest dead cat of all time. 3 government bills! An appeal to the Supreme Court! All to try and deport a few hundred people a year. At a monumental cost to the taxpayer. Even if the bill is lawful it won’t make any material difference to immigration stats. What is wrong with the right wing? Are they just utterly thick, or do they realise this is all to distract from the terrible state they have left the country in?
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Dec 8, 2023 9:37:29 GMT
Another £50 million next year too ffs! Bizarre what some people will happily ignore and what triggers others to get wound up about. This Rwanda scheme is the biggest dead cat of all time. 3 government bills! An appeal to the Supreme Court! All to try and deport a few hundred people a year. At a monumental cost to the taxpayer. Even if the bill is lawful it won’t make any material difference to immigration stats. What is wrong with the right wing? Are they just utterly thick, or do they realise this is all to distract from the terrible state they have left the country in? I think underlying idea of the scheme could be being missed here, the end game is surely to deter the future flood of additional seekers "choosing" the UK. The government want to have a working scheme so they can publicise it with the message "don't come to britain - you will end up in Rwanda" . For this message to be valid they only need to deport a few hundred people a year. I'm not a supporter of the government or politicians of any party, self seeking, self centered imo, but I don't believe many of them are thick.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Dec 8, 2023 10:12:13 GMT
This Rwanda scheme is the biggest dead cat of all time. 3 government bills! An appeal to the Supreme Court! All to try and deport a few hundred people a year. At a monumental cost to the taxpayer. Even if the bill is lawful it won’t make any material difference to immigration stats. What is wrong with the right wing? Are they just utterly thick, or do they realise this is all to distract from the terrible state they have left the country in? I think underlying idea of the scheme could be being missed here, the end game is surely to deter the future flood of additional seekers "choosing" the UK. The government want to have a working scheme so they can publicise it with the message "don't come to britain - you will end up in Rwanda" . For this message to be valid they only need to deport a few hundred people a year. I'm not a supporter of the government or politicians of any party, self seeking, self centered imo, but I don't believe many of them are thick. But it is still basically irrelevant in the grand scheme of immigration numbers! It is madness to spend so much money on such a minor issue. Why not focus on the backlog of asylum seekers we are housing in hotels costing billions a year!? £100m towards that would whip through the backlog saving billions. I don’t think the politicians are thick. It is the right wing voters who feel that the boats are this massive issue who are thick. It is wildly disproportionate to focus on it, let alone do what the government are doing and spending on it. It must cost tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands even) for a 2 hour immigration debate in the Commons. And the cost of all the lawyers working on failed legislation time and again, and to prepare for the legal challenges and hearings etc. What a waste of time and money when we have public services in crisis and bankrupt councils and austerity to hit even harder from April. Our government needs to start doing its actual job.
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Dec 8, 2023 11:04:53 GMT
Rewinder they only have accommodation for 100
In the agreement we accept thee asylum seekers unspecified numbers
We pay them 100s millions for this pleasure Who's getting the backhander
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2023 11:13:45 GMT
This Rwanda scheme is the biggest dead cat of all time. 3 government bills! An appeal to the Supreme Court! All to try and deport a few hundred people a year. At a monumental cost to the taxpayer. Even if the bill is lawful it won’t make any material difference to immigration stats. What is wrong with the right wing? Are they just utterly thick, or do they realise this is all to distract from the terrible state they have left the country in? I think underlying idea of the scheme could be being missed here, the end game is surely to deter the future flood of additional seekers "choosing" the UK. The government want to have a working scheme so they can publicise it with the message "don't come to britain - you will end up in Rwanda" . For this message to be valid they only need to deport a few hundred people a year. I'm not a supporter of the government or politicians of any party, self seeking, self centered imo, but I don't believe many of them are thick. If 70,000 come in a year, they have a 1 in 70 chance of going (if Rwanda are taking 1,000 (which I thought was the idea) or 1 in 700 if they are only taking 100 (as suggested immediately above). They could spend the rest of their natural lives sitting in a hotel because the PM can’t be arsed to hire more people to process claims. A 1 in 70/700 chance this year of being selected doesn’t sound like a terrifying deterrent for someone who’s just travelled half a world to make a better life for themselves/their family. They probably took greater risks daily to get here.
|
|
|
Post by rickyfullerbeer on Dec 8, 2023 12:09:09 GMT
Utterly disgraceful.
They need holding to account.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Dec 8, 2023 16:15:14 GMT
Aside from the fact that deporting people to Rwanda is mainly just a tactic to appease those who don't like foreigners much, especially dark-skinned ones, and ignoring the fact that they account for less than 5% of total immigration annually, 75% of them are granted asylum.
In other words, the UK is actively pursuing a policy of trying to push away a large number of people who it deems, according to its own assessment, in need of protection.
I'm not sure the current government could waste any more of our money on making the country look any more tawdry and unpleasant if it actually tried.
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Dec 8, 2023 16:51:16 GMT
There will be a lot of tories becoming cons by the end of the covid enquiry and I can see civil prosicutipns for damages against Johnson and sunak
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Dec 8, 2023 20:30:07 GMT
If, as wannabee says (and he certainly seems to know his stuff), the larger plan is to 'resettle' 2000 illegal immigrants, and being as we've already spent a quarter of a billion up to yet, it's highly probable that the total bill will be at least half a billion quid. That works out at £250,000 for each one deported. Disgraceful.
OS.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Dec 8, 2023 20:31:42 GMT
This country is a laughing stock
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Dec 8, 2023 22:22:01 GMT
If, as wannabee says (and he certainly seems to know his stuff), the larger plan is to 'resettle' 2000 illegal immigrants, and being as we've already spent a quarter of a billion up to yet, it's highly probable that the total bill will be at least half a billion quid. That works out at £250,000 for each one deported. Disgraceful. OS. £169,000 per migrant sent to Rwanda per BBC calculation Mind you the extra £100M that Cruella signed off on was only disclosed a couple of days ago so who knows what other jiggery-pokery may be involved The above calculation doesn't include Rwanda sending "Vulnerable" Asylum Seekers to/back to UK www.bbc.com/news/explainers-61782866
|
|