Don't be silly. If you genuinely mean that, to say you're not a very nice person would be an understatement. So if you got a job on border patrol, and if the UK introduced a policy of 'shoot to kill if they enter our waters', you're saying you'd be fine with that? Yes predominantly men but also women and children. You'd be fine in your own soul to kill them? And don't say 'I said shoot the boat' cause shooting the boat would very likely mean death for many/most of them.
Oh Rwanda
- Thread starter ^woody^
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Fair comment, I'd agree it's an inhumane thing to suggest. However.
28,000 people crossed the channel last year, that's treble the number for the previous year. Lets assume it carries on at the same growth rate.
350,000 by 2032?
6.3 million by 2042?
That's per year at the current growth rate, is it sustainable?
The number is displaced people is not rising, so your argument doesn’t hold true.
about 80,000 people claimed asylum in 2002 so the figures have gone down not up.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 17 May 2012
- Messages
- 10,830
- Reaction score
- 865
- Country
People smugglers will still put people on boats for money, and some refugees, asylum seekers, economic migrants will still slip through the net.
Many will do well, some will go on to do great things and make this country a better place. A tiny, tiny minority will turn to crime.
Many will do well, some will go on to do great things and make this country a better place. A tiny, tiny minority will turn to crime.
Yep Israel.
But now we know the cost of this brain fart. £120 million. I don't know if that's yearly or covering a longer period but to host up to 100 people that's a bit of a stretch in the value-for-money stakes.
There is a report somewhere in the wheels of Government examining the pull factors for refugees coming to the UK. It probably has that sort of details, but it hasn't been released as promised. Presumably as it doesn't support the current approach.Well if any one has got a better idea on how to deter boat loads blokes assisted by a supposed friendly state
paddling across the channel
than best they speak up or go and do one
Yeah, they should have used a charity or a not for profit organisation, shouldn't they? You must know a few of those in Rwanda. Perhaps you could pass their details on to Pritti?oh what a surprise, G4S stand to make money out of Rwanda deal
another private contractor making money from govt contracts
No doubt there is a way to find out but it would take a lot of investigation. It would be great to know, over the last 50 years, how effective large government initiatives have been in terms of overall effectiveness, results and value for money to the taxpayer. I'm referring to 'nice' initiatives such as levelling up and not so nice initiatives such as this one.
Obviously I can't say for sure as I don't have the data, however I strongly suspect when closely investigated, many of these schemes will have delivered one thing successfully. To make certain individuals and companies that bit richer, whilst failing to deliver the overall objective originally set.
They probably don't care if this succeeds or not. It'll please a lot of their voters (looks like a good idea) so that box is ticked, plus it'll make some of their chums that bit richer, so another box ticked.
Yep, the swamp is alive and well with many swimming around in it.
Obviously I can't say for sure as I don't have the data, however I strongly suspect when closely investigated, many of these schemes will have delivered one thing successfully. To make certain individuals and companies that bit richer, whilst failing to deliver the overall objective originally set.
They probably don't care if this succeeds or not. It'll please a lot of their voters (looks like a good idea) so that box is ticked, plus it'll make some of their chums that bit richer, so another box ticked.
Yep, the swamp is alive and well with many swimming around in it.
Last edited:
It's a radical idea. Tried by Israel and ditched a while ago. No clear idea why but suicide was mentioned. Oz has the same but to a a different place. They say it has reduced illegal boat people dramatically. Costs are TBD.
Short of good brexit aspects Boris reckons it allows us to do this. Probably bullshit. They are expecting legal problems even with people in their own group. There are international law aspects relating to refugees but not as far as I am aware on processing them. There is a desire to process people nearer to where they come from. It doesn't seem to be feasible. There are lots in refugee camps.
So what to expect - a drop in the number of illegal boats. When in Rwanda legal people will be available. Those that should get in still will also any that are seen as desirable, say doctors etc.
Effects - no real reason why numbers who can stay will be reduced. Some boats may still arrive also people via the other routes - back of an artic etc. So usual steps to spot those are still likely to be needed. Seems the Navy is going to be involved in checking. That's not free.
Some sort of camp to be built in Yorkshire. Not sure who for or how many.
There may be way more people with "problems" in coming months due to Ukraine and inflation. Food and other things. Gov's sometimes clamp down rather firmly when this sort of thing happens. Riots etc.
Some feel it's intended to bury Boris's other problems. It does sound a little ineffective in some areas, it need not alter the numbers who get to stay.
Short of good brexit aspects Boris reckons it allows us to do this. Probably bullshit. They are expecting legal problems even with people in their own group. There are international law aspects relating to refugees but not as far as I am aware on processing them. There is a desire to process people nearer to where they come from. It doesn't seem to be feasible. There are lots in refugee camps.
So what to expect - a drop in the number of illegal boats. When in Rwanda legal people will be available. Those that should get in still will also any that are seen as desirable, say doctors etc.
Effects - no real reason why numbers who can stay will be reduced. Some boats may still arrive also people via the other routes - back of an artic etc. So usual steps to spot those are still likely to be needed. Seems the Navy is going to be involved in checking. That's not free.
Some sort of camp to be built in Yorkshire. Not sure who for or how many.
There may be way more people with "problems" in coming months due to Ukraine and inflation. Food and other things. Gov's sometimes clamp down rather firmly when this sort of thing happens. Riots etc.
Some feel it's intended to bury Boris's other problems. It does sound a little ineffective in some areas, it need not alter the numbers who get to stay.
D
Deleted member 18243
I do genuinely mean it. You would only have to kill a small number to stop the rest coming, so it would be humane for them as well as for us. I want to keep my country and its people safe and secure, and sometimes you have to do unpleasant things to maintain that peace and security. Perhaps you might like to research how many British people have been killed, on our own soil, by illegal (and sometimes legal) immigrants. Try starting here:
Asylum seeker who killed Amy Houston, 12, in hit and run 'should be deported' | Daily Mail Online
We live in one of the safest, wealthiest and happiest countries that has ever existed, and we have fought many defensive wars to keep it that way; we are now in a similar, albeit undeclared, war. Boat migrants are invaders, full stop.
Sponsored Links
