Well the argument would be they are safe at the first port of call.
As I said, call their bluff, pass the bill and watch it fail
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...
- Thread starter TomandJerry
- Start date
As I said, call their bluff, pass the bill and watch it fail
The question is how have the tories deigned to neglect our 'borders' for 13 years, then to weaponize an issue they themselves created (channel crossings), only for the public to fall for their hubris and blame woke labour. It beggars belief.
What do you want to do with people 'from France' anyway? Throw them into the sea?
This is all an elegant example of how a situation is deliberately engineered so that the 'government' can bring forth a Final Solution.
And sensible people are still falling for it.
Last edited:
Rwanda!
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,751
I heard a Tory MP on the radio a couple of days ago trying to defend it.
"The intention is to discourage people from coming by threatening them with Rwanda"
followed by "Rwanda is a perfectly safe place to go".
To which the interviewer asked the rather obvious question "If Rwanda is perfectly safe, why would it act as a deterrent ?"
But apparently there's still a significant percentage who have learnt f*** all from the last 8 years and would still vote for this idiocy
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,751
And there is a very simple solution which has been explained numerous times which would turn these 'costs' into a positive tax income for the Treasury.
Reverse the steps taken by the current Government over the last 13 years. Namely,
1. Reinstate the ability to claim Asylum from abroad and let those granted asylum come into Britain, start work and contribute to Society.
2. Reopen legal Asylum routes to allow claimants
3. Work with Interpol again to target people traffickers
4. Re-employ more caseworkers to clear the backlog of applications.
You will then reverse the current Government policy of forcing asylum seekers into the hands of people smugglers and risking their lives in the channel. Interestingly, the Government's policy of having 10's of thousands arriving across the channel completely uncontrolled and not processing them, has allowed all sorts of people to get in, something Albanian gangs caught onto quickly, obviously far more competent than our Government
Boat Crossings
(Numbers weren't recorded prior to 2018 as the government thought them inconsequential).
2018 - 299
2019 - 1,890
2020 - 8,466
2021 - 28,526
2022 - 45,755
Asylum Backlog
2012 - 9,800
2018 - 27,000
2022 - 161,000
Because if you actually process them, you don't have to pay for barges, flights to Rwanda, Hostels, etc or any of this other complete bolleaux and those that are approved can start work and pay tax.
Or, alternatively, people can continue to believe this whole ridiculous 'illegal immigrant' narrative from this disgusting inhumane cabal of proven liars and let them continue to royally take the piss out of them and treat them like ridiculously naïve, slavering idiots
Last edited:
Rwanda is a very safe country but that is not the same as saying it is ‘safe’ for anyone forced to go there (or anywhere else for that matter) against their will and without proper care and integration policies. Our gov don’t give a damn about the latter, and i have no idea what the Rwandan gov has planned but given how poor the country is i suspect very little (and only the most naive believe that the uk payments will go entirely to the refugees). I do know that very few Rwandans have any clue about the whole idea and so it would be wrong to assume that the Rwandan people are supportive.
The other complete non-sequitur in this argument is that the Rwanda scheme only has capacity for a few hundred people a year. Even after the scheme gets up and running (assuming it does, eventually) there's a very high chance that any asylum-seeker arriving in the UK will NOT be sent to Rwanda. It therefore is VERY unlikely to act as a deterrent.I heard a Tory MP on the radio a couple of days ago trying to defend it.
"The intention is to discourage people from coming by threatening them with Rwanda"
followed by "Rwanda is a perfectly safe place to go".
To which the interviewer asked the rather obvious question "If Rwanda is perfectly safe, why would it act as a deterrent ?"
But apparently there's still a significant percentage who have learnt f*** all from the last 8 years and would still vote for this idiocy
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,751
If it wasn't costing so much it would be funnier than one of Baldrick's cunning plans. It is complete and utter incompetence and idiocy from start to finish
Bob!
Coffee Buyer
- Jul 5, 2003
- 11,630
And there is a very simple solution which has been explained numerous times which would turn these 'costs' into a positive tax income for the Treasury.
Reverse the steps taken by the current Government over the last 13 years. Namely,
1. Reinstate the ability to claim Asylum from abroad and let those granted asylum come into Britain, start work and contribute to Society.
2. Reopen legal Asylum routes to allow claimants
3. Work with Interpol again to target people traffickers
4. Re-employ more caseworkers to clear the backlog of applications.
You will then reverse the current Government policy of forcing asylum seekers into the hands of people smugglers and risking their lives in the channel. Interestingly, the Government's policy of having 10's of thousands arriving across the channel completely uncontrolled and not processing them, has allowed all sorts of people to get in, something Albanian gangs caught onto quickly, obviously far more competent than our Government
Boat Crossings
(Numbers weren't recorded prior to 2018 as the government thought them inconsequential).
2018 - 299
2019 - 1,890
2020 - 8,466
2021 - 28,526
2022 - 45,755
Asylum Backlog
2012 - 9,800
2018 - 27,000
2022 - 161,000
Because if you actually process them, you don't have to pay for barges, flights to Rwanda, Hostels, etc or any of this other complete bolleaux and those that are approved can start work and pay tax.
Or, alternatively, people can continue to believe this whole ridiculous 'illegal immigrant' narrative from this disgusting inhumane cabal of proven liars and let them continue to royally tak
You have basically described Labour's plan , from their missions.
Mission-driven government – The Labour Party
Labour has a long-term plan for Britain, with five missions for national renewal.
labour.org.uk
Labour will:
Smash the criminal gangs by using counter-terror style tactics – strengthening powers and using the full force of Britain’s intelligence and policing to destroy the evil business model of human trafficking.
Deploy more police and investigators in a Cross-Border Police Unit to go after the smuggler and trafficking gangs who undermine our border security and put lives at risk.
Set up a 1,000 strong Returns Unit to ensure failed asylum seekers and others with no right to be here are removed.
End hotel use for asylum seekers by clearing the asylum backlog with more staff to process claims and return people to safe countries
Nobby Cybergoat
Well-known member
- Jul 19, 2021
- 8,622
The positive here is that I don't think the public are falling for it. The Rwanda policy is wildly unpopular. The Tories are 21 points behind in the polls.
People are rejecting their crude racism.
There is a cheerleading mob in the tabloid press and tabloid TV plus a few inconsequential but noisy gammons in favour. The great majority of Britains are repulsed. Which makes me proud of my countrymen and women.
EloquentAnd there is a very simple solution which has been explained numerous times which would turn these 'costs' into a positive tax income for the Treasury.
Reverse the steps taken by the current Government over the last 13 years. Namely,
1. Reinstate the ability to claim Asylum from abroad and let those granted asylum come into Britain, start work and contribute to Society.
2. Reopen legal Asylum routes to allow claimants
3. Work with Interpol again to target people traffickers
4. Re-employ more caseworkers to clear the backlog of applications.
You will then reverse the current Government policy of forcing asylum seekers into the hands of people smugglers and risking their lives in the channel. Interestingly, the Government's policy of having 10's of thousands arriving across the channel completely uncontrolled and not processing them, has allowed all sorts of people to get in, something Albanian gangs caught onto quickly, obviously far more competent than our Government
Boat Crossings
(Numbers weren't recorded prior to 2018 as the government thought them inconsequential).
2018 - 299
2019 - 1,890
2020 - 8,466
2021 - 28,526
2022 - 45,755
Asylum Backlog
2012 - 9,800
2018 - 27,000
2022 - 161,000
Because if you actually process them, you don't have to pay for barges, flights to Rwanda, Hostels, etc or any of this other complete bolleaux and those that are approved can start work and pay tax.
Or, alternatively, people can continue to believe this whole ridiculous 'illegal immigrant' narrative from this disgusting inhumane cabal of proven liars and let them continue to royally take the piss out of them and treat them like ridiculously naïve, slavering idiots
He has, a couple of times. As usual the answer is "BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH, BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, What have YOU done to STOP the BOATS?!" and every other fluff and nonsense they chuck out.
Has Sunak, Johnson or Truss ever actually answered the question that's being asked in PMQs?
"Why are we spending £400m on this Rwanda nonsense, when we have bigger problems to solve?"
"Yeah? YEAH? Well YOU were in CORBYN'S shadow cabinet? What do you have to say about THAT?" Sit's down smugly
How can it be "very safe" if we are granting asylum to people fleeing Rwanda?
Did you read this article posted earlier in the thread by Pevenseagull?
Kizito Mihigo: The Rwandan gospel singer who died in a police cell
Rwandan genocide survivor Kizito Mihigo, hailed as a national talent, was later accused of treason.
www.bbc.co.uk
Does it sound like a "very safe" country to you?
Try this from Rainbow Migration
Rwanda is not safe for LGBTQI+ people - Rainbow Migration
Reports suggest that this government is proposing to send LGBTQI+ people who come to the UK seeking safety from persecution to Rwanda.
www.rainbowmigration.org.uk
So we have someone arrive in the UK seeking asylum as they are being persecuted for being gay. So we stick them on a plane to Rwanda where they will be persecuted for being gay. It's still not sounding like a "very safe" country is it?
We granted asylum to 15 Rwandans last year.
UK Grants Asylum to 15 Rwandans Despite ‘Safe Country’ Claims
The UK granted asylum applications to 15 Rwandans last year — despite insisting the African nation is a “safe country” to which it can deport refugees.
www.bloomberg.com
If Rwanda is your vision of a "safe country", I really don't know how you would try to define an "unsafe" one.
No. You make a good point. I was pondering last night whether the current pathetic childish exchanges between Sunak and Starmer are because we have such a weak Speaker that has lost a lot of respect recently. But it isn't. It's always been this way although perhaps not to the extent it is with these two clowns.
What if the Prime Minister was compelled to ANSWER the questions at Prime Ministers Questions and if he doesn't, the Speaker has the power to hold the PM "in contempt of Parliament" and suspend him from the House. Could well put an end to the childishness and get some proper politics done.
Nobby Cybergoat
Well-known member
- Jul 19, 2021
- 8,622
A great idea.
And the leader of the opposition has to ask the question, not launch into a mini speech.
PMQ's should be about holding the government and PM to account
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Play poker with people's lives?
How can it be "very safe" if we are granting asylum to people fleeing Rwanda?
Did you read this article posted earlier in the thread by Pevenseagull?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-af...uk/news/rwanda-is-not-safe-for-lgbtqi-people/
So we have someone arrive in the UK seeking asylum as they are being persecuted for being gay. So we stick them on a plane to Rwanda where they will be persecuted for being gay. It's still not sounding like a "very safe" country is it?
We granted asylum to 15 Rwandans last year.
UK Grants Asylum to 15 Rwandans Despite ‘Safe Country’ Claims
The UK granted asylum applications to 15 Rwandans last year — despite insisting the African nation is a “safe country” to which it can deport refugees.
If Rwanda is your vision of a "safe country", I really don't know how you would try to define an "unsafe" one.
You are right. My experience of Rwanda is that it’s a very safe country in terms of what we might normally call safe in terms of crime, walking down the street at night, theft etc. Also it’s a relative judgment given that only 30 years ago 1 million people died in the genocide. It is quite extraordinary how the Rwandan people have come together and created real peace and community so quickly from such horrors.
But if just one Rwandan feels unsafe and needs to seek asylum here because of their sexuality then clearly it is not safe for everyone and your original point is well made and i accept it without argument.
I hate everything about this gov’s approach to asylum seekers and Rwanda and a part of that is the way that Rwanda and the wonderful, friendly, almost entirely poor land based people end up being denigrated as a result. They know little about the machinations and prejudices of our and their leaders and maybe I get a bit defensive on their behalf.
Last edited:
I think even Swift would have baulked at putting something as absurd and unbelievable as our gov’s Rwandan policy in one of his books. I have tried to clarify what i meant by ‘safe’ in my reply to Rippleman’s post. He is right of course that one of many flaws in the policy is that we accept asylum seekers from Rwanda (and they need to seek it). The whole thing is just wrong, wrong,wrong.
Not Andy Naylor
Well-known member
If Rwanda is a safe country, why is sending people there supposed to be such a deterrent?