Taipan wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 11:42 am
I like Braverman. She seems concerned with policy rather than currying public favour or appeasing her baying colleagues! I prefer determination to ingratiation!
She seems entirely wedded to this Rwanda nonsense. IF the scheme works it will send a few 00s off to Rwanda where they will be deeply unhappy, and many will do their best to create trouble. Within a year or two Rwanda will be pissed off with the troublemakers who they cannot send back whence they came, and will tell us to piss off.
It is a deeply flawed idea, and needs dropping now. Braverman will cling to it like shit to a blanket.
Taipan wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 11:42 am
I like Braverman. She seems concerned with policy rather than currying public favour or appeasing her baying colleagues! I prefer determination to ingratiation!
She seems entirely wedded to this Rwanda nonsense. IF the scheme works it will send a few 00s off to Rwanda where they will be deeply unhappy, and many will do their best to create trouble. Within a year or two Rwanda will be pissed off with the troublemakers who they cannot send back whence they came, and will tell us to piss off.
It is a deeply flawed idea, and needs dropping now. Braverman will cling to it like shit to a blanket.
It may take us off the list of desired destinations, as I believe was its intention...
Taipan wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 11:42 am
I like Braverman. She seems concerned with policy rather than currying public favour or appeasing her baying colleagues! I prefer determination to ingratiation!
She seems entirely wedded to this Rwanda nonsense. IF the scheme works it will send a few 00s off to Rwanda where they will be deeply unhappy, and many will do their best to create trouble. Within a year or two Rwanda will be pissed off with the troublemakers who they cannot send back whence they came, and will tell us to piss off.
It is a deeply flawed idea, and needs dropping now. Braverman will cling to it like shit to a blanket.
It may take us off the list of desired destinations, as I believe was its intention...
Not unless it is SEEN to be working, ie it works consistently time after time, swiftly and certainly.
I cannot see that happening, I can see a large number of human rights lawyers getting fat(ter) and the UK continuing to be a laughing stock.
She seems entirely wedded to this Rwanda nonsense. IF the scheme works it will send a few 00s off to Rwanda where they will be deeply unhappy, and many will do their best to create trouble. Within a year or two Rwanda will be pissed off with the troublemakers who they cannot send back whence they came, and will tell us to piss off.
It is a deeply flawed idea, and needs dropping now. Braverman will cling to it like shit to a blanket.
It may take us off the list of desired destinations, as I believe was its intention...
Not unless it is SEEN to be working, ie it works consistently time after time, swiftly and certainly.
I cannot see that happening, I can see a large number of human rights lawyers getting fat(ter) and the UK continuing to be a laughing stock.
I always thought it was a bit of a win win ruse on the Govts part. People smugglers would have a hard time putting the UK up as a desirable destination if the punters thought they might get offed to Rwanda. But if they did come, the Govt could ship them out. Either way Govt cut immigration by illegal/economic migrants, which is a vote winner.
Taipan wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 3:53 pm
I always thought it was a bit of a win win ruse on the Govts part. People smugglers would have a hard time putting the UK up as a desirable destination if the punters thought they might get offed to Rwanda. But if they did come, the Govt could ship them out. Either way Govt cut immigration by illegal/economic migrants, which is a vote winner.
And in the meantime it will be the victims of the people traffickers that will suffer. Typical of the tories to punish the victims.
With all the news about small boats and the idiocy of the Rwanda "solution" there is never any news about what actions are being taken to stop the traffickers. Is anything actually being done? When have any of the traffickers ever appeared in court?
Seriously, if you cannot be arsed to stop the traffickers and still expect the situation to get any better then you are clearly an idiot.
Blundering about trying not to make too much of a hash of things.
Taipan wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 3:53 pm
I always thought it was a bit of a win win ruse on the Govts part. People smugglers would have a hard time putting the UK up as a desirable destination if the punters thought they might get offed to Rwanda. But if they did come, the Govt could ship them out. Either way Govt cut immigration by illegal/economic migrants, which is a vote winner.
And in the meantime it will be the victims of the people traffickers that will suffer. Typical of the tories to punish the victims.
With all the news about small boats and the idiocy of the Rwanda "solution" there is never any news about what actions are being taken to stop the traffickers. Is anything actually being done? When have any of the traffickers ever appeared in court?
Seriously, if you cannot be arsed to stop the traffickers and still expect the situation to get any better then you are clearly an idiot.
It's supply and demand though. There's no people traffickers without people who want to travel. Its easier to remove the end destination as it's here, then work overseas at the point of origin.
Potter wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 5:07 pm
I'm not keen on a lot of the hypocrisy as well to be honest.
I've frequently pointed out the horrendous death rates in places like Africa, but it's been really clear that no one actually cares.....until some of them land on a UK beach somewhere and then all of a sudden there is a lot of concern for these poor victims - they didn't seem bothered at all when they're dying in their own country and a cynic might suggest that they're only interested now that there are political points to be scored
Well I did suggest that addressing some of these problems 'at source' might be a good idea some time ago but didn't get much support for such a radical idea.
We reap what we have sown.
Doubt is not a pleasant condition.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Voltaire
Lutin wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 4:26 pm
Seriously, if you cannot be arsed to stop the traffickers and still expect the situation to get any better then you are clearly an idiot.
How you gonna stop 'em? They're in France.
I doubt it's a case of CBA, more hands being tied.
Taipan wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 3:53 pm
I always thought it was a bit of a win win ruse on the Govts part. People smugglers would have a hard time putting the UK up as a desirable destination if the punters thought they might get offed to Rwanda. But if they did come, the Govt could ship them out. Either way Govt cut immigration by illegal/economic migrants, which is a vote winner.
And in the meantime it will be the victims of the people traffickers that will suffer. Typical of the tories to punish the victims.
With all the news about small boats and the idiocy of the Rwanda "solution" there is never any news about what actions are being taken to stop the traffickers. Is anything actually being done? When have any of the traffickers ever appeared in court?
Seriously, if you cannot be arsed to stop the traffickers and still expect the situation to get any better then you are clearly an idiot.
It's supply and demand though. There's no people traffickers without people who want to travel. Its easier to remove the end destination as it's here, then work overseas at the point of origin.
The traffickers create the demand. Most of their victims have been fed a load of lies about what they can expect in the UK. Stopping the traffickers would choke off both supply and demand.
And in the meantime it will be the victims of the people traffickers that will suffer. Typical of the tories to punish the victims.
With all the news about small boats and the idiocy of the Rwanda "solution" there is never any news about what actions are being taken to stop the traffickers. Is anything actually being done? When have any of the traffickers ever appeared in court?
Seriously, if you cannot be arsed to stop the traffickers and still expect the situation to get any better then you are clearly an idiot.
It's supply and demand though. There's no people traffickers without people who want to travel. Its easier to remove the end destination as it's here, then work overseas at the point of origin.
The traffickers create the demand. Most of their victims have been fed a load of lies about what they can expect in the UK. Stopping the traffickers would choke off both supply and demand.
Sorry but I dont buy that. A large amount of them arrive carrying phone tech etc. They know exactly where and why they want to go to whatever destination, be that here or in Europe. I have no doubt all destinations are embellished by the traffickers though.
Cousin Jack wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 2:30 pm
She seems entirely wedded to this Rwanda nonsense. IF the scheme works it will send a few 00s off to Rwanda where they will be deeply unhappy, and many will do their best to create trouble. Within a year or two Rwanda will be pissed off with the troublemakers who they cannot send back whence they came, and will tell us to piss off.
It is a deeply flawed idea, and needs dropping now. Braverman will cling to it like shit to a blanket.
It may take us off the list of desired destinations, as I believe was its intention...
Not unless it is SEEN to be working, ie it works consistently time after time, swiftly and certainly.
I cannot see that happening, I can see a large number of human rights lawyers getting fat(ter) and the UK continuing to be a laughing stock.
You mean like Italy building migrant centres in Albania? Oh.
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people." - Giordano Bruno
Potter wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 5:07 pm
I'm not keen on a lot of the hypocrisy as well to be honest.
I've frequently pointed out the horrendous death rates in places like Africa, but it's been really clear that no one actually cares.....until some of them land on a UK beach somewhere and then all of a sudden there is a lot of concern for these poor victims - they didn't seem bothered at all when they're dying in their own country and a cynic might suggest that they're only interested now that there are political points to be scored
Well I did suggest that addressing some of these problems 'at source' might be a good idea some time ago but didn't get much support for such a radical idea.
We reap what we have sown.
Many NGO's and other charitable organisations been doing this for decades. Been making political and military elites wealthy, shame about the poor eh? Anyone who thinks the majority of aid goes to the poor is living in la-la land, but we are morally bound to try of course.
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people." - Giordano Bruno
Potter wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 5:07 pm
I'm not keen on a lot of the hypocrisy as well to be honest.
I've frequently pointed out the horrendous death rates in places like Africa, but it's been really clear that no one actually cares.....until some of them land on a UK beach somewhere and then all of a sudden there is a lot of concern for these poor victims - they didn't seem bothered at all when they're dying in their own country and a cynic might suggest that they're only interested now that there are political points to be scored
Well I did suggest that addressing some of these problems 'at source' might be a good idea some time ago but didn't get much support for such a radical idea.
We reap what we have sown.
Many NGO's and other charitable organisations been doing this for decades. Been making political and military elites wealthy, shame about the poor eh? Anyone who thinks the majority of aid goes to the poor is living in la-la land, but we are morally bound to try of course.
I can recall getting involved at school with UNICEF back in the 1950s. If all the money raised for Africa famine relief/child poverty/etc from then on were fairly distributed most Africans would be richer than most Europeans.
It's probably much easier for the traffickers to move folk across Europe, with no borders, in trailers, cars whatever.
You'd imagine it's a bit more difficult getting them into small boats and chance it in the channel, but they do have great success. Once our RNLI picks them up and brings them to our shore, journey is over, they've made it.
Controlling our own borders was bullshit, but it helped win the big vote.
A ruthless approach from Day 1 would have solved it. Illegal route, deported, no rights, no appeal, no delay. If you conceal your country of origin we will choose where to send you back to. Simple law, that states it over-rides all other laws, rights and treaties. I could write it myself in 1/2 a day.
Add a legal way to seek asylum from other countries, and Bob's yer uncle.
Cousin Jack wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 9:35 pm
A ruthless approach from Day 1 would have solved it. Illegal route, deported, no rights, no appeal, no delay. If you conceal your country of origin we will choose where to send you back to. Simple law, that states it over-rides all other laws, rights and treaties. I could write it myself in 1/2 a day.
Add a legal way to seek asylum from other countries, and Bob's yer uncle.
Agree.
If you enter the UK illegally then you're deported.
Last edited by irie on Thu Dec 07, 2023 10:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people." - Giordano Bruno
Cousin Jack wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 9:35 pm
A ruthless approach from Day 1 would have solved it. Illegal route, deported, no rights, no appeal, no delay. If you conceal your country of origin we will choose where to send you back to. Simple law, that states it over-rides all other laws, rights and treaties. I could write it myself in 1/2 a day.
Add a legal way to seek asylum from other countries, and Bob's yer uncle.
To simplify that ^^^
If you enter the country illegally then you're Solent Green.
Cousin Jack wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 9:35 pm
A ruthless approach from Day 1 would have solved it. Illegal route, deported, no rights, no appeal, no delay. If you conceal your country of origin we will choose where to send you back to. Simple law, that states it over-rides all other laws, rights and treaties. I could write it myself in 1/2 a day.
Add a legal way to seek asylum from other countries, and Bob's yer uncle.
Agree.
If you enter the UK illegally then you're deported.
The problem still stands...how in reality do you deport them.
