Reply With QuoteWell said.Originally Posted by Claude Blue
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
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.
Well said.
Actually, I think Australia has largely stopped it no?
When was the last time someone died in a boat in Australian waters?
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!
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]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
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]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]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]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]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
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/
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?
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.
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.
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!
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!
Posting Permissions
