|
Post by oldie on Jun 15, 2022 7:53:21 GMT
To add to the billions & millions of pounds wasted by this mob …. Add another 500k on a flight to Rwanda with nobody aboard 🙄 You forget to add it was the European Court of Human Rights who blocked the flight so not exactly the governments fault the plane never took off. Of course it is. It's their stupid policy. They are responsible for that and all of the subsequent consequences.
|
|
yattongas
Forum Legend
Posts: 15,060
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Jun 15, 2022 8:53:25 GMT
To add to the billions & millions of pounds wasted by this mob …. Add another 500k on a flight to Rwanda with nobody aboard 🙄 You forget to add it was the European Court of Human Rights who blocked the flight so not exactly the governments fault the plane never took off. Oh gawd 🙄
|
|
|
Post by francegas on Jun 15, 2022 9:08:48 GMT
You forget to add it was the European Court of Human Rights who blocked the flight so not exactly the governments fault the plane never took off. Of course it is. It's their stupid policy. They are responsible for that and all of the subsequent consequences. Just a question Oldie...What's Labours policy on illegal immigration? How are they going to stop 10s of thousands crossing the channel every year? Where will Labour house them when the UK has a homelessness problem already. Just asking. Instead of just ridiculing how about a sensible alternative.
|
|
|
Post by francegas on Jun 15, 2022 9:09:30 GMT
You forget to add it was the European Court of Human Rights who blocked the flight so not exactly the governments fault the plane never took off. Oh gawd 🙄 Typical response
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Jun 15, 2022 9:12:17 GMT
To add to the billions & millions of pounds wasted by this mob …. Add another 500k on a flight to Rwanda with nobody aboard 🙄 You forget to add it was the European Court of Human Rights who blocked the flight so not exactly the governments fault the plane never took off. No one has blocked the flight just prevented people from potentially being unlawfully put on it until their case is heard
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Jun 15, 2022 9:17:13 GMT
Of course it is. It's their stupid policy. They are responsible for that and all of the subsequent consequences. Just a question Oldie...What's Labours policy on illegal immigration? How are they going to stop 10s of thousands crossing the channel every year? Where will Labour house them when the UK has a homelessness problem already. Just asking. Instead of just ridiculing how about a sensible alternative. Is sending a couple of hundred people to Rwanda and accepting some Rwandan's in exchange really a deterrent?
|
|
|
Post by francegas on Jun 15, 2022 9:29:21 GMT
Just a question Oldie...What's Labours policy on illegal immigration? How are they going to stop 10s of thousands crossing the channel every year? Where will Labour house them when the UK has a homelessness problem already. Just asking. Instead of just ridiculing how about a sensible alternative. Is sending a couple of hundred people to Rwanda and accepting some Rwandan's in exchange really a deterrent? Well if it's an ongoing policy it'll be more than a few hundred. Yes I believe it'll be a deterrent to stop illegal people trafficking, plus if you paid ÂŁ1000s to get in a rubber dinghy risking your life to get to the UK knowing that once you get there you'll be put on a plane to Rwanda to be processed you may think twice. Would you rather someone from Rwanda who is identified, security checked etc or the opposite. Please don't get me wrong I'm all for immigration (after all I'm an immigrant here in France) the difference is I came here legally and that's how it should be.
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Jun 15, 2022 9:32:54 GMT
Of course it is. It's their stupid policy. They are responsible for that and all of the subsequent consequences. Just a question Oldie...What's Labours policy on illegal immigration? How are they going to stop 10s of thousands crossing the channel every year? Where will Labour house them when the UK has a homelessness problem already. Just asking. Instead of just ridiculing how about a sensible alternative. All illegal immigration should be dealt with the laws on the Statute Book. People arriving to seek refugee status is not an illegal act. We have a proud history of providing safe haven. Although I believe this lot have introduced a law to make it illegal to arrive and seek refugee status (not checked this). Shame on them if so. On housing. It would disingenuous not to accept that immigration without planning causes pressure on public services, including housing. But immigration is not the fundamental cause of our housing crisis. That is down to Government policy. 1. Selling off social housing has been a disaster. 2. Not replacing that stock by successive governments has been a disaster. 3. Allowing the private sector to buy up land and then "bank" it to drive up prices by squeezing supply has been a disaster. In the 1970s the average price of a house was 4 times income. Now it is 8 times. There you go. Blaming immigrants is just the usual trope put out by failing conservative governments. Twas always thus, in my life it started with Powell.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Jun 15, 2022 9:36:53 GMT
Is sending a couple of hundred people to Rwanda and accepting some Rwandan's in exchange really a deterrent? Well if it's an ongoing policy it'll be more than a few hundred. Yes I believe it'll be a deterrent to stop illegal people trafficking, plus if you paid ÂŁ1000s to get in a rubber dinghy risking your life to get to the UK knowing that once you get there you'll be put on a plane to Rwanda to be processed you may think twice. Would you rather someone from Rwanda who is identified, security checked etc or the opposite. Please don't get me wrong I'm all for immigration (after all I'm an immigrant here in France) the difference is I came here legally and that's how it should be. If we really want to stop the smugglers than how about instead of spending ridiculous money on a rubbish policy we spend it on some better safe routes and processing claims faster
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Jun 15, 2022 9:59:31 GMT
Well if it's an ongoing policy it'll be more than a few hundred. Yes I believe it'll be a deterrent to stop illegal people trafficking, plus if you paid ÂŁ1000s to get in a rubber dinghy risking your life to get to the UK knowing that once you get there you'll be put on a plane to Rwanda to be processed you may think twice. Would you rather someone from Rwanda who is identified, security checked etc or the opposite. Please don't get me wrong I'm all for immigration (after all I'm an immigrant here in France) the difference is I came here legally and that's how it should be. If we really want to stop the smugglers than how about instead of spending ridiculous money on a rubbish policy we spend it on some better safe routes and processing claims faster Far to straightforward.
|
|
|
Post by francegas on Jun 15, 2022 10:51:07 GMT
Just a question Oldie...What's Labours policy on illegal immigration? How are they going to stop 10s of thousands crossing the channel every year? Where will Labour house them when the UK has a homelessness problem already. Just asking. Instead of just ridiculing how about a sensible alternative. All illegal immigration should be dealt with the laws on the Statute Book. People arriving to seek refugee status is not an illegal act. We have a proud history of providing safe haven. Although I believe this lot have introduced a law to make it illegal to arrive and seek refugee status (not checked this). Shame on them if so. On housing. It would disingenuous not to accept that immigration without planning causes pressure on public services, including housing. But immigration is not the fundamental cause of our housing crisis. That is down to Government policy. 1. Selling off social housing has been a disaster. 2. Not replacing that stock by successive governments has been a disaster. 3. Allowing the private sector to buy up land and then "bank" it to drive up prices by squeezing supply has been a disaster. In the 1970s the average price of a house was 4 times income. Now it is 8 times. There you go. Blaming immigrants is just the usual trope put out by failing conservative governments. Twas always thus, in my life it started with Powell. Totally agree with your first sentence. Totally agree with your second sentence. However correct me if I'm wrong (as the regulation may have changed) but under The Dublin Regulation does it not state The Dublin Regulation (also known as Dublin III) is EU law setting out which country is responsible for looking at an individual’s asylum application. This is usually the country where the asylum seeker first arrives in the EU. That doesn't mean that they have to seek refuge in that country doesn't it mean they are processed and if their application is successful then free to travel to their country of choice.(I don't know). Whereas those turning up on the beaches are committing an illegal act of getting into the UK. So I would questioned are they all refugees or migrants to which there is a difference. I never said immigration is the fundamental cause of the UK housing crisis I was questioning where the UK is supposed to house them. So I suppose in answer to my question you and Labour have no solution or alternative to the problem. Mind you that doesn't surprise with Sir Keir Starmer as he's still unable to make up his mind what a woman is.
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Jun 15, 2022 11:27:11 GMT
All illegal immigration should be dealt with the laws on the Statute Book. People arriving to seek refugee status is not an illegal act. We have a proud history of providing safe haven. Although I believe this lot have introduced a law to make it illegal to arrive and seek refugee status (not checked this). Shame on them if so. On housing. It would disingenuous not to accept that immigration without planning causes pressure on public services, including housing. But immigration is not the fundamental cause of our housing crisis. That is down to Government policy. 1. Selling off social housing has been a disaster. 2. Not replacing that stock by successive governments has been a disaster. 3. Allowing the private sector to buy up land and then "bank" it to drive up prices by squeezing supply has been a disaster. In the 1970s the average price of a house was 4 times income. Now it is 8 times. There you go. Blaming immigrants is just the usual trope put out by failing conservative governments. Twas always thus, in my life it started with Powell. Totally agree with your first sentence. Totally agree with your second sentence. However correct me if I'm wrong (as the regulation may have changed) but under The Dublin Regulation does it not state The Dublin Regulation (also known as Dublin III) is EU law setting out which country is responsible for looking at an individual’s asylum application. This is usually the country where the asylum seeker first arrives in the EU. That doesn't mean that they have to seek refuge in that country doesn't it mean they are processed and if their application is successful then free to travel to their country of choice.(I don't know). Whereas those turning up on the beaches are committing an illegal act of getting into the UK. So I would questioned are they all refugees or migrants to which there is a difference. I never said immigration is the fundamental cause of the UK housing crisis I was questioning where the UK is supposed to house them. So I suppose in answer to my question you and Labour have no solution or alternative to the problem. Mind you that doesn't surprise with Sir Keir Starmer as he's still unable to make up his mind what a woman is. France This sort of nonsense devalued your points. "Mind you that doesn't surprise with Sir Keir Starmer as he's still unable to make up his mind what a woman is." Come on, you are better than that. Let me agree with you on first safe country landed to apply for refugee status. Agreed, they should. But what if they do not? What if they react as "in transit"? Legally if they have arrived in France without passing through border/immigration controls, what would you expect France, as a country, to do? Normally a person would be expelled, but to where? I think there are bigger questions in play here, the biggest perhaps being, are national borders and boundaries enforceable any more. Free movement within a Single Market was an enlightened acceptance of this. In my opinion.
|
|
yattongas
Forum Legend
Posts: 15,060
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Jun 15, 2022 13:06:42 GMT
Just a question Oldie...What's Labours policy on illegal immigration? How are they going to stop 10s of thousands crossing the channel every year? Where will Labour house them when the UK has a homelessness problem already. Just asking. Instead of just ridiculing how about a sensible alternative. All illegal immigration should be dealt with the laws on the Statute Book. People arriving to seek refugee status is not an illegal act. We have a proud history of providing safe haven. Although I believe this lot have introduced a law to make it illegal to arrive and seek refugee status (not checked this). Shame on them if so. On housing. It would disingenuous not to accept that immigration without planning causes pressure on public services, including housing. But immigration is not the fundamental cause of our housing crisis. That is down to Government policy. 1. Selling off social housing has been a disaster. 2. Not replacing that stock by successive governments has been a disaster. 3. Allowing the private sector to buy up land and then "bank" it to drive up prices by squeezing supply has been a disaster. In the 1970s the average price of a house was 4 times income. Now it is 8 times. There you go. Blaming immigrants is just the usual trope put out by failing conservative governments. Twas always thus, in my life it started with Powell. www.schroders.com/en/uk/private-investor/insights/markets/what-174-years-of-data-tell-us-about-house-price-affordability-in-the-uk/
|
|
yattongas
Forum Legend
Posts: 15,060
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Jun 15, 2022 14:28:47 GMT
Is sending a couple of hundred people to Rwanda and accepting some Rwandan's in exchange really a deterrent? Well if it's an ongoing policy it'll be more than a few hundred. Yes I believe it'll be a deterrent to stop illegal people trafficking, plus if you paid £1000s to get in a rubber dinghy risking your life to get to the UK knowing that once you get there you'll be put on a plane to Rwanda to be processed you may think twice. Would you rather someone from Rwanda who is identified, security checked etc or the opposite. Please don't get me wrong I'm all for immigration (after all I'm an immigrant here in France) the difference is I came here legally and that's how it should be. You do realise they are not just processed in Rwanda don’t you ?
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Jun 15, 2022 14:58:42 GMT
Well if it's an ongoing policy it'll be more than a few hundred. Yes I believe it'll be a deterrent to stop illegal people trafficking, plus if you paid £1000s to get in a rubber dinghy risking your life to get to the UK knowing that once you get there you'll be put on a plane to Rwanda to be processed you may think twice. Would you rather someone from Rwanda who is identified, security checked etc or the opposite. Please don't get me wrong I'm all for immigration (after all I'm an immigrant here in France) the difference is I came here legally and that's how it should be. You do realise they are not just processed in Rwanda don’t you ? Indeed. It's a one way ticket. Why do supporters of this disgraceful act not know the detail of what they claim to support?
|
|
yattongas
Forum Legend
Posts: 15,060
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Jun 15, 2022 15:03:25 GMT
You do realise they are not just processed in Rwanda don’t you ? Indeed. It's a one way ticket. Why do supporters of this disgraceful act not know the detail of what they claim to support? I’m sorry to say this but anyone who supports this racist policy should be ashamed. It’s abhorrent.
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Jun 15, 2022 15:05:08 GMT
Indeed. It's a one way ticket. Why do supporters of this disgraceful act not know the detail of what they claim to support? I’m sorry to say this but anyone who supports this racist policy should be ashamed. It’s abhorrent. Don't be sorry. Loads of us agree with you
|
|
yattongas
Forum Legend
Posts: 15,060
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Jun 15, 2022 15:26:57 GMT
I’m sorry to say this but anyone who supports this racist policy should be ashamed. It’s abhorrent. Don't be sorry. Loads of us agree with you I say it with reticence because although France is a right wing loon I thought even he’d see this policy for what it is . It’s designed to cause division and a wedge issue and I hoped he was better than that.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 15, 2022 15:35:30 GMT
Is sending a couple of hundred people to Rwanda and accepting some Rwandan's in exchange really a deterrent? Well if it's an ongoing policy it'll be more than a few hundred. Yes I believe it'll be a deterrent to stop illegal people trafficking, plus if you paid £1000s to get in a rubber dinghy risking your life to get to the UK knowing that once you get there you'll be put on a plane to Rwanda to be processed you may think twice. Would you rather someone from Rwanda who is identified, security checked etc or the opposite. Please don't get me wrong I'm all for immigration (after all I'm an immigrant here in France) the difference is I came here legally and that's how it should be. It's almost as if the government already knew and wanted to pick a fight with the ECHR, can't think why they'd want to demonise a bunch of foreigners to cover up their own incompetence. Not like it's happened before. 🤠With trafficking, many of those being trafficked won't even know where they are going as it's the traffickers who decide. This is a separate issue from smugglers. Also it's penalising the people being trafficked rather than the traffickers themselves.
|
|
yattongas
Forum Legend
Posts: 15,060
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Jun 15, 2022 16:20:11 GMT
|
|