Body & Soul0 min ago
Why Is Our Plan "Unnacceptable"?
114 Answers
https:/
We copied the Aussies, their plan was ok. Why is ours any different?
We copied the Aussies, their plan was ok. Why is ours any different?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Today, further evidence, as if any was needed, to demonstrate that the people of this country (who are paying to deal with the influx and who suffer the consequences of it) are not the primary consideration (if they are any consideration at all). The Prime Minister, reacting to criticism of his plan to deport new arrivals to Rwanda, said this:
"The plan is necessary to protect these people from people smugglers."
No, no NO. The plan (and others, some of which might actually work) is necessary to protect the people of this country from the effects of this invasion. The people in northern France need not fall prey to people smugglers. Nobody forces them to pay £3k for a trip in a rubber boat, nobody forces them into one. They do so of their own free will. It is the protection of the people in this country for which the PM should be making plans.
"The plan is necessary to protect these people from people smugglers."
No, no NO. The plan (and others, some of which might actually work) is necessary to protect the people of this country from the effects of this invasion. The people in northern France need not fall prey to people smugglers. Nobody forces them to pay £3k for a trip in a rubber boat, nobody forces them into one. They do so of their own free will. It is the protection of the people in this country for which the PM should be making plans.
webbo; Right on! Also the first responsibility of this, or any government, is to protect its citizens, & in allowing these things to take place they have been failing, they are belatedly trying to correct that failure, & twa ts like the archbishop of Canterbury attacking them in the false name of Christianity is reprehensible.
Christ would not condone the support of evil people-smugglers putting lives at risk for profit.
Christ would not condone the support of evil people-smugglers putting lives at risk for profit.
I see this morning that the redoubtable Ann agrees with me;
https:/
https:/
Meanwhile, here’s a few snippets from the “small print” that has been published today:
Firstly this:
*****
Those who fled war or persecution and were granted asylum status by Rwanda will be able to come to the UK under a reciprocal scheme signed by the Home Secretary:
“The participants [in the scheme, i.e. the UK and Rwanda] will make arrangements for the United Kingdom to resettle a portion of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees in the United Kingdom, recognising both participants’ commitment towards providing better international protection for refugees.”
A Home Office source said it would apply to ‘a number in the tens, not hundreds’ of people who have already been granted refugee status in Rwanda.
However, the agreement states no limit. The refugees who are brought to this country are likely to be those with the most complex needs, it is understood, such as those with physical or mental health problems.
***
So, if we manage to get any of our illegal immigrants to Rwanda (a big “if”) they will simply be exchanged for a number with “complex needs” currently in Rwanda.
Then, a little on the practicalities the government is not overly keen to have us losing too much sleep over:
***
Details set out in a ‘memorandum of understanding’ between the UK and Rwanda reveals that victims of modern slavery and trafficking could be sent to Rwanda under the scheme. After a migrant arrives in Britain and is selected for transfer to Rwanda, the Home Office will provide them with a travel document if they do not have a passport, the deal’s small print adds. This aspect could be vulnerable to legal challenge, it is thought.
But the Home Office’s top civil servant claimed in a letter to Miss Patel that the Rwanda scheme is ‘entirely appropriate’ given the scale of the crisis. Matthew Rycroft, the department’s permanent secretary, said it was ‘regular, proper and feasible for this policy to proceed."
***
Mr Rycroft will have to forgive me if I don’t share his optimism. The granting of a “travel document” (which will be essentially a deportation notice) WILL be vulnerable to legal challenge. It’s a stone cold certainty.
The report concludes that Downing Street hopes the first removal flights will take place by the end of next month. So watch this space (but I would advise readers not to hold their breath.
Firstly this:
*****
Those who fled war or persecution and were granted asylum status by Rwanda will be able to come to the UK under a reciprocal scheme signed by the Home Secretary:
“The participants [in the scheme, i.e. the UK and Rwanda] will make arrangements for the United Kingdom to resettle a portion of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees in the United Kingdom, recognising both participants’ commitment towards providing better international protection for refugees.”
A Home Office source said it would apply to ‘a number in the tens, not hundreds’ of people who have already been granted refugee status in Rwanda.
However, the agreement states no limit. The refugees who are brought to this country are likely to be those with the most complex needs, it is understood, such as those with physical or mental health problems.
***
So, if we manage to get any of our illegal immigrants to Rwanda (a big “if”) they will simply be exchanged for a number with “complex needs” currently in Rwanda.
Then, a little on the practicalities the government is not overly keen to have us losing too much sleep over:
***
Details set out in a ‘memorandum of understanding’ between the UK and Rwanda reveals that victims of modern slavery and trafficking could be sent to Rwanda under the scheme. After a migrant arrives in Britain and is selected for transfer to Rwanda, the Home Office will provide them with a travel document if they do not have a passport, the deal’s small print adds. This aspect could be vulnerable to legal challenge, it is thought.
But the Home Office’s top civil servant claimed in a letter to Miss Patel that the Rwanda scheme is ‘entirely appropriate’ given the scale of the crisis. Matthew Rycroft, the department’s permanent secretary, said it was ‘regular, proper and feasible for this policy to proceed."
***
Mr Rycroft will have to forgive me if I don’t share his optimism. The granting of a “travel document” (which will be essentially a deportation notice) WILL be vulnerable to legal challenge. It’s a stone cold certainty.
The report concludes that Downing Street hopes the first removal flights will take place by the end of next month. So watch this space (but I would advise readers not to hold their breath.
And now, an exciting instalment for those who believe this invasion is having few or no consequences:
The government is spending £5m a day block booking hotel rooms to accommodate migrants. That’s £1.8 billion a year. Put in perspective, that’s enough to pay for about 45,000 nurses.
At Easter, the four-star Holiday Inn in Maidenhead, Berkshire, close to Britain’s most popular theme park, Legoland, is usually full of holidaymakers. Visitors rave about the spa and the swimming pool plus the fact that it’s a short hop to Windsor Castle, Ascot racecourse and the moorings of river Thames pleasure boats. But this weekend, it was closed to tourists, outraging Britons who were hoping to stay there. It is now the home of migrants who have sailed across the Channel. It suddenly closed to the public and even refunded local residents’ subscriptions to the gym on the site. On Thursday night, migrants were seen wandering in and out of the establishment, while some sat in the gardens. The building is ringed by security guards who said that ordinary visitors were no longer welcome as the Home Office had taken it over. The abrupt change has annoyed tourists. In one internet review, a would-be guest said: "I had a few days booked at Legoland with my children. Got a call today cancelling [the hotel] for no reason – now I know the reason.
Among other establishments whose guests suffered the same fate:
- Best Western’s Midland Hotel in Derby. Some guests with bookings there were not informed that their arrangements had been cancelled until they arrived and their journeys were wasted.
- The Grand Hotel in Eastbourne. Uniformed security guards at the entrance turn prospective guests away, saying the hotel is block booked by a ‘private organisation’.
- The Suites Hotel and Spa near Prescot, Merseyside, appears to have been split into two sections, one for migrants and one for paying guests and spa-users. A security guard sits at the entrance of the migrants’ section near a forecourt where on Friday morning two men, wearing hoodies, shorts and flip-flops drank coffee before setting off for a walk.
Never mind. Ordinary guests will be able to return from the end of next month when mass deportations to Rwanda begin. I also understand ten squadrons of pigs are fully trained and fuelled up and will be giving displays of aerobatics over each of the effected hotels, beginning on the same date.
The government is spending £5m a day block booking hotel rooms to accommodate migrants. That’s £1.8 billion a year. Put in perspective, that’s enough to pay for about 45,000 nurses.
At Easter, the four-star Holiday Inn in Maidenhead, Berkshire, close to Britain’s most popular theme park, Legoland, is usually full of holidaymakers. Visitors rave about the spa and the swimming pool plus the fact that it’s a short hop to Windsor Castle, Ascot racecourse and the moorings of river Thames pleasure boats. But this weekend, it was closed to tourists, outraging Britons who were hoping to stay there. It is now the home of migrants who have sailed across the Channel. It suddenly closed to the public and even refunded local residents’ subscriptions to the gym on the site. On Thursday night, migrants were seen wandering in and out of the establishment, while some sat in the gardens. The building is ringed by security guards who said that ordinary visitors were no longer welcome as the Home Office had taken it over. The abrupt change has annoyed tourists. In one internet review, a would-be guest said: "I had a few days booked at Legoland with my children. Got a call today cancelling [the hotel] for no reason – now I know the reason.
Among other establishments whose guests suffered the same fate:
- Best Western’s Midland Hotel in Derby. Some guests with bookings there were not informed that their arrangements had been cancelled until they arrived and their journeys were wasted.
- The Grand Hotel in Eastbourne. Uniformed security guards at the entrance turn prospective guests away, saying the hotel is block booked by a ‘private organisation’.
- The Suites Hotel and Spa near Prescot, Merseyside, appears to have been split into two sections, one for migrants and one for paying guests and spa-users. A security guard sits at the entrance of the migrants’ section near a forecourt where on Friday morning two men, wearing hoodies, shorts and flip-flops drank coffee before setting off for a walk.
Never mind. Ordinary guests will be able to return from the end of next month when mass deportations to Rwanda begin. I also understand ten squadrons of pigs are fully trained and fuelled up and will be giving displays of aerobatics over each of the effected hotels, beginning on the same date.
//NJ: Apart from your cunning plan (as Baldrick would say) to more or less drown them, you have still to give a better answer than that of deportation.//
I don't have one. But I expect the authorities of the country I live in to protect it from an invasion by hundreds of people arriving daily with no permission to be here. If they can come up with nothing better than my plan I suggest they implement it because this influx will cause untold damage to this country at a time when it can least afford it. It is completely unsustainable which my later post (about the requisitioned hotels) illustrates. I will say again - the deportation plan is insufficient even if it worked, and it certainly will not work.
I don't have one. But I expect the authorities of the country I live in to protect it from an invasion by hundreds of people arriving daily with no permission to be here. If they can come up with nothing better than my plan I suggest they implement it because this influx will cause untold damage to this country at a time when it can least afford it. It is completely unsustainable which my later post (about the requisitioned hotels) illustrates. I will say again - the deportation plan is insufficient even if it worked, and it certainly will not work.
'One of my vivid memories of lockdown is of homeless veterans, who normally slept rough, being given a place to stay in a hotel. Some marvellous volunteers emailed me to say that the men received a pitiful daily allowance. Nonetheless, they were tearfully grateful for the food they were given, and beyond thrilled to have hot water to shower in, and clean sheets. (Clean sheets may be one of the small pleasures that unite all mankind.)
When I heard the Archbishop of Canterbury using his Easter sermon to denounce the plan to send illegal migrants to Rwanda – “the principle must stand the judgment of God, and it cannot,” he warned – I wondered if that reliably clueless cleric was aware that our veterans were tipped back onto the streets once lockdown was over. Their hotel rooms were taken by thousands of men (the vast majority of the 37,000 asylum seekers in the UK are fit young males) who crossed the Channel after paying up to £7,000 each for their passage. Does Justin Welby know that around £5 million of taxpayers’ money is spent every day paying the bill for those 37,000, meaning hotel accommodation is in short supply?......
Allison Pearson, The Telegraph
When I heard the Archbishop of Canterbury using his Easter sermon to denounce the plan to send illegal migrants to Rwanda – “the principle must stand the judgment of God, and it cannot,” he warned – I wondered if that reliably clueless cleric was aware that our veterans were tipped back onto the streets once lockdown was over. Their hotel rooms were taken by thousands of men (the vast majority of the 37,000 asylum seekers in the UK are fit young males) who crossed the Channel after paying up to £7,000 each for their passage. Does Justin Welby know that around £5 million of taxpayers’ money is spent every day paying the bill for those 37,000, meaning hotel accommodation is in short supply?......
Allison Pearson, The Telegraph
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.