BreakTheLaw Boris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

You have a right to care about the issues you care about, and other people have a right to care about issues they care about.

I don't think it is the biggest issue in the country, but I also think it's possible to walk and chew gum at the same time, and personally illegal immigration, abuse of asylum, people dying on dinghies and the enrichment of criminal gangs in the repulsive people traficking industry is something that we should try and solve, even if it upsets a few peoples sensitivities along the way.

You've also failed to come up with any solutions and just wheeled out a few predictable tropes, which doesn't move us forward at all.

---

You seem to have bundled up illegal immigration, abuse of asylum, people dying in dinghies and enrichment of criminal gangs into one big issue that is resolved by sending certain people legitimately seeking asylum in this country by whatever route they choose to Rwanda.

Illegal immigrants should be dealt with by the law as they are illegal and sent back to whence they came.

Bogus asylum seekers similarly. Though around eight out of 10 people (the one's being sent to Africa that you care so much about their exploitation) have their asylum claims granted because they are at risk in their homeland.

Dealing with criminal gangs making money trafficking people across the channel obviously requires international co-operation based on trust. However this government wants people to hate the French as much as the people in the boats so perhaps that goodwill and trust is in short supply.

Our asylum rules before this dead cat stuff were proportionate and the number of people seeking asylum is proportionate with the amount of unrest in the rest of the world.

Why you think sending trafficked people to the middle of Africa is the best way to deal with what you say is the biggest problem traffickers I guess you will be able to rationalise.

Still it's been about two or three pages since anyone posted about Boris Johnson breaking the law multiple times when he lied about that he had to Parliament so if this is mirrored on discussion groups across the country, job done eh!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

You seem to have bundled up illegal immigration, abuse of asylum, people dying in dinghies and enrichment of criminal gangs into one big issue that is resolved by sending certain people legitimately seeking asylum in this country by whatever route they choose to Rwanda.

Illegal immigrants should be dealt with by the law as they are illegal and sent back to whence they came.

Bogus asylum seekers similarly. Though around eight out of 10 people (the one's being sent to Africa that you care so much about their exploitation) have their asylum claims granted because they are at risk in their homeland.

Dealing with criminal gangs making money trafficking people across the channel obviously requires international co-operation based on trust. However this government wants people to hate the French as much as the people in the boats so perhaps that goodwill and trust is in short supply.

Our asylum rules before this dead cat stuff were proportionate and the number of people seeking asylum is proportionate with the amount of unrest in the rest of the world.

Why you think sending trafficked people to the middle of Africa is the best way to deal with what you say is the biggest problem traffickers I guess you will be able to rationalise.

Still it's been about two or three pages since anyone posted about Boris Johnson breaking the law multiple times when he lied about that he had to Parliament so if this is mirrored on discussion groups across the country, job done eh!

---

Think that’s a bit unfair, Johnson’s always talking about our French friends.

90% of 29k reaching Uk last year were male, 70 per cent were single. ????

Perhaps those with true sympathy for these chaps should house them ?? .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

90% of 29k reaching Uk last year were male, 70 per cent were single. ????

Perhaps those with true sympathy for these chaps should house them ?? .

---

We pay taxes for a well managed and proportionate asylum/immigration process, it shouldn't require charity but since you asked, how about we start with Buckingham Palace?

What has their gender or their relationship status got to do with whether they deserve to be treated in a fair and proportionate way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

We pay taxes for a well managed and proportionate asylum/immigration process, it shouldn't require charity but since you asked, how about we start with Buckingham Palace?

What has their gender or their relationship status got to do with whether they deserve to be treated in a fair and proportionate way?

---

Bet he didn't get that feedback when he discussed the issue in Wetherspoons earlier!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

You have a right to care about the issues you care about, and other people have a right to care about issues they care about.

I don't think it is the biggest issue in the country, but I also think it's possible to walk and chew gum at the same time, and personally illegal immigration, abuse of asylum, people dying on dinghies and the enrichment of criminal gangs in the repulsive people traficking industry is something that we should try and solve, even if it upsets a few peoples sensitivities along the way.

You've also failed to come up with any solutions and just wheeled out a few predictable tropes, which doesn't move us forward at all.

---

I can't work out why will this stop people from paying for traffickers to get them into the UK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

I appreciate that was a rhetorical question, but no, you wouldn't have to in that instance.

But then if we lived in a country where the government wanted to murder all of the people trying to seek asylum, the last thing you would do is speak up and question and their policies anyway.

Yes - it is possible to criticise a problem and not have a better one lined up, but such opinions are just substantially less useful than also being able to offer up an alternative.

---

Opinions have to be useful too?! Bloody hell, I didn't realise how many rules there were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

I can't work out why will this stop people from paying for traffickers to get them into the UK.

---

Would you pay £10,000 or so to a human trafficker who you will never see again for a boat to the UK if you thought when you got here you would be flown to Rwanda and processed?

The idea here is to reduce illegal immigration done via criminal gangs. There is no ideal solution, but doing nothing isnt an option

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tito Fuente

Opinions have to be useful too?! Bloody hell, I didn't realise how many rules there were.

---

Yeah, I hang around in the wrong messageboards tbf :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Would you pay £10,000 or so to a human trafficker who you will never see again for a boat to the UK if you thought when you got here you would be flown to Rwanda and processed?

The idea here is to reduce illegal immigration done via criminal gangs. There is no ideal solution, but doing nothing isnt an option

---

They aren't paying to reach a processing unit, they are paying 10k to avoid a processing unit. If everyone coming over is being rounded up and processed then where is the need to move it to Rwanda and if they aren't then this won't solve it, they still get through and become illegal immigrants.

Just because we hear 'Rwanda' and think 'feck me, no thanks', doesn't mean migrants from half destroyed shit holes will think the same and if they don't then that is your deterrent gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

I can't work out why will this stop people from paying for traffickers to get them into the UK.

---

It wont.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Would you pay £10,000 or so to a human trafficker who you will never see again for a boat to the UK if you thought when you got here you would be flown to Rwanda and processed?

The idea here is to reduce illegal immigration done via criminal gangs. There is no ideal solution, but doing nothing isnt an option

---

They will focus their attention on women, children and family groups (genuine or not) thus increasing the risk to even more people.

The fact that women, children and family groups are excluded shows that even Johnson and Patel do not regard Rwanda as entirely safe. Add to that the fact that homosexuality is still frowned upon in that country and you may begin to understand why any decent human being would regard this policy as disgusting.

Sadly we are governed by people with no moral compass or decency and do not value human life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claude Blue

They will focus their attention on women, children and family groups (genuine or not) thus increasing the risk to even more people.

The fact that women, children and family groups are excluded shows that even Johnson and Patel do not regard Rwanda as entirely safe. Add to that the fact that homosexuality is still frowned upon in that country and you may begin to understand why any decent human being would regard this policy as disgusting.

Sadly we are governed by people with no moral compass or decency and do not value human life.

---

If it helps to break the current cycle of human trafficking then it's worth trying. To do nothing, to tolerate the status quo should be more disgusting to any decent human being. I dont think people have any real idea quite how repulsive and global this industry is, and many people in this country dont seem to care as long as they can just claim some moral high ground and slag off the government.

Is this not what Denmark are doing? If it slows the trade in human trafficking and reduces illegal immigration we should try it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

We pay taxes for a well managed and proportionate asylum/immigration process, it shouldn't require charity but since you asked, how about we start with Buckingham Palace?

What has their gender or their relationship status got to do with whether they deserve to be treated in a fair and proportionate way?

---

What's that got to do with single males in thier thousands leaving families to enter UK ??

If this was 29 thousand women and children I'd have a different view . ..

Never mind Buck House, charity starts at home and you have wonderful ideals which I admit most of us lack , so step up show your goodness and offer a room rather than pass the buck ( get it ) to queeny .

It's not about taxes it's about being a voice and going
over beyond and support what you belive in and offer up that spare room or find one for these unfortunate single fellas who I'm sure are in need . Even tent in you back garden would be haven for them ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hilts

It wont.

---

How do you know ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

If it helps to break the current cycle of human trafficking then it's worth trying. To do nothing, to tolerate the status quo should be more disgusting to any decent human being. I dont think people have any real idea quite how repulsive and global this industry is, and many people in this country dont seem to care as long as they can just claim some moral high ground and slag off the government.

Is this not what Denmark are doing? If it slows the trade in human trafficking and reduces illegal immigration we should try it.

---

Australia and Israel have both tried off shoring migrants - both systems failed and the costs were exorbitant. Perhaps this government should learn from these countries?

The best solution (you'll never fully stop it) is greater cooperation with our EU neighbours, particularly France. Not easy as the French can be awkward buggers (!!) but we need to work diplomatically with all our European allies.

Getting back into the Dublin Convention (and improving it) would be a start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claude Blue

They will focus their attention on women, children and family groups (genuine or not) thus increasing the risk to even more people.

The fact that women, children and family groups are excluded shows that even Johnson and Patel do not regard Rwanda as entirely safe. Add to that the fact that homosexuality is still frowned upon in that country and you may begin to understand why any decent human being would regard this policy as disgusting.

Sadly we are governed by people with no moral compass or decency and do not value human life.

---

Well said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claude Blue

Australia and Israel have both tried off shoring migrants - both systems failed and the costs were exorbitant. Perhaps this government should learn from these countries?

The best solution (you'll never fully stop it) is greater cooperation with our EU neighbours, particularly France. Not easy as the French can be awkward buggers (!!) but we need to work diplomatically with all our European allies.

Getting back into the Dublin Convention (and improving it) would be a start.

---

Actually, I think Australia has largely stopped it no?

When was the last time someone died in a boat in Australian waters?

Attachment 4886

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hilts

Well said.

---

You might think so but clearly you have not been taking LoM's deep philosophical views into consideration. I'll precis:

Bounce around, bounce around, if you don't house a single male asylum seeker, you're a Jack!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Actually, I think Australia has largely stopped it no?

When was the last time someone died in a boat in Australian waters?

---

Currently on Nauru, Australia’s only “enduring” offshore processing island, there are 107 refugees and asylum seekers held. Most have been there more than eight years.

It costs the Australian taxpayer $358,646 (£193,400) every month to hold a single person on the island, nearly $12,000 (£6500) a day, or $4.3m (£2,320,000) per person each year, according to the government’s own figures.

Kurdish-Iranian journalist and refugee Behrouz Boochani was held for more than seven years on Manus Island, abused, beaten and tortured, before he secured a visa to New Zealand, which recognised his protection claim. He saw friends killed, watched them descend into madness, or simply give up.

Guardian so probably bollocks!

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2...nse-goes-wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

Currently on Nauru, Australia’s only “enduring” offshore processing island, there are 107 refugees and asylum seekers held. Most have been there more than eight years.

It costs the Australian taxpayer $358,646 (£193,400) every month to hold a single person on the island, nearly $12,000 (£6500) a day, or $4.3m (£2,320,000) per person each year, according to the government’s own figures.

Kurdish-Iranian journalist and refugee Behrouz Boochani was held for more than seven years on Manus Island, abused, beaten and tortured, before he secured a visa to New Zealand, which recognised his protection claim. He saw friends killed, watched them descend into madness, or simply give up.

Guardian so probably bollocks!

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2...nse-goes-wrong

---

Probably not bollocks, but probably an agenda and not looking at the fuller picture, which is what was happening in Australia before, which was illegal crossings via criminal gangs across dangerous seas.

Proper policies and enforcing the law sometimes costs money. We should give it a go. If you think effectively giving priority to young men wealthy enough to pay then thats up to you. I think we can do better. And you still havent come up with an alternative.

[QUOTE=JamesWales;5292641]Probably not bollocks, but probably an agenda and not looking at the fuller picture, which is what was happening in Australia before, which was illegal crossings via criminal gangs across dangerous seas.

Proper policies and enforcing the law sometimes costs money. We should give it a go. If you think effectively giving priority to young men wealthy enough to pay then thats up to you. I think we can do better. And you still havent come up with an alternative.[/Q

So despite being shown that the cost of a similar scheme was enormous and clearly unsustainable and horrific abuse took place you still think "we should give it a go" I suppose you think that as we're British we'll do it better and it'll be "world beating" no doubt!

For reference checkout tonights Newsnight on BBC2 - interesting detail from Lewis Goodall and the interviews after. I know it's the BBC and it obviously has an agenda, etc. but give it a view.

[QUOTE=Claude Blue;5292648]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Probably not bollocks, but probably an agenda and not looking at the fuller picture, which is what was happening in Australia before, which was illegal crossings via criminal gangs across dangerous seas.

Proper policies and enforcing the law sometimes costs money. We should give it a go. If you think effectively giving priority to young men wealthy enough to pay then thats up to you. I think we can do better. And you still havent come up with an alternative.[/Q

So despite being shown that the cost of a similar scheme was enormous and clearly unsustainable and horrific abuse took place you still think "we should give it a go" I suppose you think that as we're British we'll do it better and it'll be "world beating" no doubt!

For reference checkout tonights Newsnight on BBC2 - interesting detail from Lewis Goodall and the interviews after. I know it's the BBC and it obviously has an agenda, etc. but give it a view.

---

I just watched it. I think the current situation is utterly unsustainable. How many will arrive over the weekend from France? A thousand? a couple of thousand? That would be at least £5m going to criminal gangs and there is no guarantee these are the most deserving or needy cases. We have to do something

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

What's that got to do with single males in thier thousands leaving families to enter UK ??

If this was 29 thousand women and children I'd have a different view . ..

Never mind Buck House, charity starts at home and you have wonderful ideals which I admit most of us lack , so step up show your goodness and offer a room rather than pass the buck ( get it ) to queeny .

It's not about taxes it's about being a voice and going
over beyond and support what you belive in and offer up that spare room or find one for these unfortunate single fellas who I'm sure are in need . Even tent in you back garden would be haven for them ?

---

I would imagine much the same reason why an adult female without children does?

I am struggling to work out your position, you want me to let illegal immigrants stay in a tent in my 6 foot by 8 foot walled garden? It is a wonder you aren't in the cabinet with fantastic policy ideas like that.

Funnily enough, I also believe that we pay taxes for a well managed NHS, do you think I should start to offer minor surgery on my kitchen table to show my 'support'.

[QUOTE=JamesWales;5292653]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claude Blue

I just watched it. I think the current situation is utterly unsustainable. How many will arrive over the weekend from France? A thousand? a couple of thousand? That would be at least £5m going to criminal gangs and there is no guarantee these are the most deserving or needy cases. We have to do something

---

So LoM said 29k a year arrived last year and you are speculating a couple of thousand this weekend alone. You boys need to get your act together. Obviously there is no guarantee that these are most deserving or needy cases. I must admit that I don't understand this rule as they either meet the UK's criteria as a valid asylum seekers or they don't.

On that basis, according to the UK Government figures I provided you earlier today, 72% of those people, seeking asylum were granted it at first application. Obviously this will rise when appeals are considered.

So, lets be generous, of LoM's 30k, three quarters made it over the bar without appeal. That leaves 7.5k people a year to have a hissy fit about on an island of 70 million people.

Still we have to do something because of those people traffickers!

[QUOTE=cyril evans awaydays;5292664]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

So LoM said 29k a year arrived last year and you are speculating a couple of thousand this weekend alone. You boys need to get your act together. Obviously there is no guarantee that these are most deserving or needy cases. I must admit that I don't understand this rule as they either meet the UK's criteria as a valid asylum seekers or they don't.

On that basis, according to the UK Government figures I provided you earlier today, 72% of those people, seeking asylum were granted it at first application. Obviously this will rise when appeals are considered.

So, lets be generous, of LoM's 30k, three quarters made it over the bar without appeal. That leaves 7.5k people a year to have a hissy fit about on an island of 70 million people.

Still we have to do something because of those people traffickers!

---

Honestly, its unbelievable and somewhat shameful how you are okay with the status quo.

I can see how any solution is controversial with inevitable pros and cons but the current situation is a total joke.

[QUOTE=JamesWales;5292653]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claude Blue

I just watched it. I think the current situation is utterly unsustainable. How many will arrive over the weekend from France? A thousand? a couple of thousand? That would be at least £5m going to criminal gangs and there is no guarantee these are the most deserving or needy cases. We have to do something

---

The Tories must be worried/serious, they allowed a Minister to appear on Newsnight (I may have misheard, but it sounded like he thought there was a Labour Government in 2014)! You say you watched those stats shown on the programme and it, clearly, had no effect on you, all you seem to have to offer is “it’s better than nothing” - Tuesday, the Prime Minister is fined for breaking his own law, Thursday we get to hear about this. It’s knee jerk governing dictated by events (more often than not prompted by the Prime Minister’s unfitness for the job).

Just in case we forget the "future PM" from a month or two ago;-

According to the latest issue of the peer-reviewed Economic Journal, the scheme “can account for between 8% [and] 17% of all new [Covid-19] infections” during the period in which the scheme was active, (and likely many more non-detected asymptomatic infections)"

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ugh-chancellor

[QUOTE=the other bob wilson;5292684]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

The Tories must be worried/serious, they allowed a Minister to appear on Newsnight (I may have misheard, but it sounded like he thought there was a Labour Government in 2014)! You say you watched those stats shown on the programme and it, clearly, had no effect on you, all you seem to have to offer is “it’s better than nothing” - Tuesday, the Prime Minister is fined for breaking his own law, Thursday we get to hear about this. It’s knee jerk governing dictated by events (more often than not prompted by the Prime Minister’s unfitness for the job).

---

I'm glad you also heard the bit about a Labour government in 2014, I thought it must have been just me!

Very poor of the presenter not to challenge it.

Completely unrelated to Johnson being fined last Tuesday of course;=

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61122241

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Completely unrelated to Johnson being fined last Tuesday of course;=

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61122241

---

The words of Johnson and Patel give the game away when they talk of taking on a “formidable army of politically motivated lawyers” who are “fleecing the British taxpayer”.

A solution/trial whatever deliberately designed to encourage legal challenges so an embattled Prime Minister and ministers can position themselves as defenders of the faith in the culture war stuff that will lead up to the May elections.

Whether this flies or not doesn't really matter to them. The budget for this is a closely guarded secret. What matters is the noise it generates. My guess is that it would suit the architects if it is declared illegal as it will trigger an assault on the legislation like the Human Rights Act. Far better a noble failure than perhaps living with the consequences of its implementation causing headlines around general election time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

The words of Johnson and Patel give the game away when they talk of taking on a “formidable army of politically motivated lawyers” who are “fleecing the British taxpayer”.

A solution/trial whatever deliberately designed to encourage legal challenges so an embattled Prime Minister and ministers can position themselves as defenders of the faith in the culture war stuff that will lead up to the May elections.

Whether this flies or not doesn't really matter to them. The budget for this is a closely guarded secret. What matters is the noise it generates. My guess is that it would suit the architects if it is declared illegal as it will trigger an assault on the legislation like the Human Rights Act. Far better a noble failure than perhaps living with the consequences of its implementation causing headlines around general election time.

---

They are talking about this kind of thing. I really dont get why so many people object to trying to fix what is clearly a pretty broken system.


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/133582...egal-deported/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

They are talking about this kind of thing. I really dont get why so many people object to trying to fix what is clearly a pretty broken system.


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/133582...egal-deported/

---

So you don't like the current laws of the land. What bits of law would you change to give you the solution you are seeking?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

They are talking about this kind of thing. I really dont get why so many people object to trying to fix what is clearly a pretty broken system.


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/133582...egal-deported/

---

Deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda is consistent with Governments plan to become only the third country to ditch the principles of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.

The others are:
Greece, after a military coup and
Russia, after invading Ukraine

Truly world beating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

They are talking about this kind of thing. I really dont get why so many people object to trying to fix what is clearly a pretty broken system.


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/133582...egal-deported/

---

It's naïve (at best) to think Johnson, Patel et al want to "fix" anything.

They are nothing but self-serving tosspots who will do whatever is necessary (including breaking laws) to protect themselves or further their own interests.

Sorry James but this transparent act of fixing a "broken system" doesn't sit well with people who have spent the last 4 years watching this current Tory government lower the standards of decency and humanity with every decision they make.

They couldn't give a shit about the lives and welfare of asylum seekers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

What's that got to do with single males in thier thousands leaving families to enter UK ??

If this was 29 thousand women and children I'd have a different view . ..

Never mind Buck House, charity starts at home and you have wonderful ideals which I admit most of us lack , so step up show your goodness and offer a room rather than pass the buck ( get it ) to queeny .

It's not about taxes it's about being a voice and going
over beyond and support what you belive in and offer up that spare room or find one for these unfortunate single fellas who I'm sure are in need . Even tent in you back garden would be haven for them ?

---

You're completely right of course, and I remember you being INCREDIBLY concerned about the treatment of the Uyghurs in China when the BLM protests were happening. What steps have you taken since to go "over beyond and support what you believe in?" in terms of that? Or were you just whatabouting again because you're a racist idiot?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by delmbox

You're completely right of course, and I remember you being INCREDIBLY concerned about the treatment of the Uyghurs in China when the BLM protests were happening. What steps have you taken since to go "over beyond and support what you believe in?" in terms of that? Or were you just whatabouting again because you're a racist idiot?

---

tbf he hasn't always been concerned.

https://www.ccmb.co.uk/showthread.ph...=1#post5092163

That said, your final question is unlikely to be the trickiest one this Board has to wrestle with today!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

They are talking about this kind of thing. I really dont get why so many people object to trying to fix what is clearly a pretty broken system.


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/133582...egal-deported/

---

You are a broken record and reaching, this article has very little to do with this thread and you know that.

They object to the proposed policy because they believe it violates what this country should stand for. Additionally I haven't heard anybody explain why they think it will actually work as intended and act as a deterrent. The is the architect of the policy herself can't even explain why she thinks it will work or quantify the benefits resulting from it.

You remember the magic money tree? The common thread behind that slogan was that not all problems can be fixed easily. This is another one of those problems. Short of being barbaric, there isn't a quick fix to migration, primarily because there are so many causes.

This is 'hostile environment' 2.0 and I do not want my country to act in that way.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...da-asylum-plan

I think that this was done under Ministerial Direction, basically an instruction to civil servants to proceed despite the clear warnings of legal and economic risks is telling.

Ina past life when I drafted Ministerial submissions then there were mandatory chapters that needed to be provided on legal considerations and a cost benefit analysis. These were provided by departmental lawyers and economists. the lawyers, particularly in sensitive issues would often need to consult independent barristers to have an assessment that it was legal and robust enough to successfully withstand court challenge and Judicial Review.

I would have thought that a Permanent Secretary would not seek cover under Ministerial Direction on value for money grounds only (if the Treasury says the money will be found its not a ditch to die in). It is more likely that the legal assessment was so troublesome that he wanted basically an order to proceed.

If so it would be priti ironic if the best way for a government minister to distract from breaking the law is to break the law!