Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Come To Britain And Travel In Style.
190 Answers
http://
Why the need to transport seven young African males, at a cost of £3,000, all the way from London to Manchester, in such luxurious transport?
Why the need to transport seven young African males, at a cost of £3,000, all the way from London to Manchester, in such luxurious transport?
Answers
THECORBYLOON //Rana Saif, 55, who owns a pub in the village and took the photograph of the black limousine, said: ‘It’s a big waste of money – and taxpayers’ money at that. 'I have no problem with immigration, I moved here from Sweden, but there are too many in a small village. The limo was here about half an hour. I thought it must be a stag do. 'There were...
13:06 Wed 14th Oct 2015
Gromit
/// Do you believe the £3000 is the flat rate that the Government ALWAYS pays? ///
Not having possession to Government accounts I have no idea, and neither have you I presume.
I can only go on the information given to the pub landlord, by the limo driver, and thus reported by most of the press.
*** Rana Saif, 55, who owns a pub in the village and took the photograph of the black limousine, said: ‘It’s a big waste of money – and taxpayers’ money at that.
'I have no problem with immigration, I moved here from Sweden, but there are too many in a small village. The limo was here about half an hour. I thought it must be a stag do.
'There were seven migrants, all young African men. The driver said he was going to take them to Manchester and he was being paid £3,000. He said the Home Office would pay him.' ***
/// Do you believe the £3000 is the flat rate that the Government ALWAYS pays? ///
Not having possession to Government accounts I have no idea, and neither have you I presume.
I can only go on the information given to the pub landlord, by the limo driver, and thus reported by most of the press.
*** Rana Saif, 55, who owns a pub in the village and took the photograph of the black limousine, said: ‘It’s a big waste of money – and taxpayers’ money at that.
'I have no problem with immigration, I moved here from Sweden, but there are too many in a small village. The limo was here about half an hour. I thought it must be a stag do.
'There were seven migrants, all young African men. The driver said he was going to take them to Manchester and he was being paid £3,000. He said the Home Office would pay him.' ***
Mr aog
This news section is a joke. If you provide a news heading without a link you get howled down with,"It is customary to provide a link with a news item"
If you provide a link that comes from anywhere other than the BBC or the Guardian then you are questioned as to the validity of the story.
You can only go by the information provided in the link and if it includes the gender,ethnicity,cost etc etc I cannot for the life of me see why people have to query the poster as to the inclusion of certain information provided in the link.
This news section is a joke. If you provide a news heading without a link you get howled down with,"It is customary to provide a link with a news item"
If you provide a link that comes from anywhere other than the BBC or the Guardian then you are questioned as to the validity of the story.
You can only go by the information provided in the link and if it includes the gender,ethnicity,cost etc etc I cannot for the life of me see why people have to query the poster as to the inclusion of certain information provided in the link.
AOG
Ah!
So it was the limo driver who told the pub landlord.
I see.
But from what I've now read, whilst the limo driver was (allegedly) being paid £3,000 this cost was not being passed on to the Home Office.
Does that not mean that the tax payer isn't going to be stumping up?
Furthermore, in your link to the Daily Mail story, isn't there figures given for limo hire, none of which are £3,000?
It also seems that this was a one-off event for which Serco have apologised (calling it inappropriate, and assuring us that it wouldn't recur) rather than some wacky government policy.
Ah!
So it was the limo driver who told the pub landlord.
I see.
But from what I've now read, whilst the limo driver was (allegedly) being paid £3,000 this cost was not being passed on to the Home Office.
Does that not mean that the tax payer isn't going to be stumping up?
Furthermore, in your link to the Daily Mail story, isn't there figures given for limo hire, none of which are £3,000?
It also seems that this was a one-off event for which Serco have apologised (calling it inappropriate, and assuring us that it wouldn't recur) rather than some wacky government policy.
//The chauffeur told astonished locals that the Home Office was picking up the tab.//
//The driver said he was going to take them to Manchester and he was being paid £3,000. He said the Home Office would pay him.'//
Who else would pay serco if not the H.O. ? The immigrants themselves?
I believe the apology is purely for the type of transport provided NOT the cost.
If, as is feasible, in this case that the H.O. pay the cost then where does government get their finance from. The Tax payer!!
//The driver said he was going to take them to Manchester and he was being paid £3,000. He said the Home Office would pay him.'//
Who else would pay serco if not the H.O. ? The immigrants themselves?
I believe the apology is purely for the type of transport provided NOT the cost.
If, as is feasible, in this case that the H.O. pay the cost then where does government get their finance from. The Tax payer!!
sp1814
/// But from what I've now read, whilst the limo driver was (allegedly) being paid £3,000 this cost was not being passed on to the Home Office. ///
How many more times do I have to paste this.
*** The driver said he was going to take them to Manchester and he was being paid £3,000. He said the Home Office would pay him.' ***
The secret is in these words "He said the Home Office would pay him".
/// Does that not mean that the tax payer isn't going to be stumping up? ///
So since the Home Office is a government department then yes the taxpayer would be indirectly paying.
/// Furthermore, in your link to the Daily Mail story, isn't there figures given for limo hire, none of which are £3,000? ///
Since the driver said he would be paid £3,000 by the Home Office, I can only presume that was for the hire of the limo also his services.
If I have got it wrong, then please provide me with the proof, that the £3,000 was for something else.
/// But from what I've now read, whilst the limo driver was (allegedly) being paid £3,000 this cost was not being passed on to the Home Office. ///
How many more times do I have to paste this.
*** The driver said he was going to take them to Manchester and he was being paid £3,000. He said the Home Office would pay him.' ***
The secret is in these words "He said the Home Office would pay him".
/// Does that not mean that the tax payer isn't going to be stumping up? ///
So since the Home Office is a government department then yes the taxpayer would be indirectly paying.
/// Furthermore, in your link to the Daily Mail story, isn't there figures given for limo hire, none of which are £3,000? ///
Since the driver said he would be paid £3,000 by the Home Office, I can only presume that was for the hire of the limo also his services.
If I have got it wrong, then please provide me with the proof, that the £3,000 was for something else.
I was involved with many state visits. Most of the limos were provided by the Government Car Service. Payed,ultimately, by the tax payer. The rest of the many Limos provided came from the same Executive Chauffeur Hire Company in London. I will not name the company but they were extremeley professional and competent and very very expensive.Paid for by the Government Hospitality Service, which is funded by the tax payer. £3,000 is not surprising in this case.
AOG
I think this is why I think this is a bit dodgy.
This unnamed man made a claim that the Home Office would be paying this, but Serco have denied this.
No matter how many times you post this, doesn't it boil down to "There's this bloke in the pub the other day, and he reckons that..."
It's for this reason that I personally like fullfact.org to do their work before swallowing these stories.
All very entertaining and an excellent basis for a general discussion, but 'true'?
Jury might be out on that.
I think this is why I think this is a bit dodgy.
This unnamed man made a claim that the Home Office would be paying this, but Serco have denied this.
No matter how many times you post this, doesn't it boil down to "There's this bloke in the pub the other day, and he reckons that..."
It's for this reason that I personally like fullfact.org to do their work before swallowing these stories.
All very entertaining and an excellent basis for a general discussion, but 'true'?
Jury might be out on that.
AOG
There's a straightforward way of determining the truth on the Internet.
If I say, wrote on AB, "The movie Sicario was released in cinemas last week", you could easily check the veracity by looking at several film sites.
If I however post, "Whitney Houston was seen riding an enchanted unicorn down the Mall last week", one would be best minded to check whether it was true before believing it.
There's a straightforward way of determining the truth on the Internet.
If I say, wrote on AB, "The movie Sicario was released in cinemas last week", you could easily check the veracity by looking at several film sites.
If I however post, "Whitney Houston was seen riding an enchanted unicorn down the Mall last week", one would be best minded to check whether it was true before believing it.
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.