Crosswords0 min ago
Common Sense At Last
https:/
We need to care for our own in these turbulent times , for example our ex servicemen sleeping rough on our streets , and show that the gravy train is going nowhere
We need to care for our own in these turbulent times , for example our ex servicemen sleeping rough on our streets , and show that the gravy train is going nowhere
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bobbisox1. 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.
-- answer removed --
//The sooner they start filling the planes the better.//
You seem to be labouring under a misunderstanding, LadyGC.
The Rwandan facility - for which the UK has paid the Rwandan government £120m to set up - currently has the capacity to house around 100 people at once and process the claims of up to 500 occupants per year. That is about ten a week (with the current numbers of illegal landings running at around 800 a week). So “filling the planes” is not likely to begin any time soon. As well as this initial cost, the government will also pay ongoing running costs for holding those sent there. Estimates of these costs vary, but (depending where you look) can range from £12,000 per person to almost £100,000.
This scheme is pure theatre. It is said it will “deter” migrants from attempting to reach the UK. I’d beg to differ. It can deal with up to 500 people a year (if the UK manages to send that number). It is very likely the total number reaching these shores illegally this year will be approaching 50,000 – a total which will almost certainly be topped next year. So there’s around one chance in a hundred that if you land here you will end up in Africa. If the chances of drowning in the sea do not deter people from attempting the crossing (and bear in mind that has actually happened, whereas nobody has yet been sent to Rwanda), there is no way that the minimal chance of ending up in Africa will.
You seem to be labouring under a misunderstanding, LadyGC.
The Rwandan facility - for which the UK has paid the Rwandan government £120m to set up - currently has the capacity to house around 100 people at once and process the claims of up to 500 occupants per year. That is about ten a week (with the current numbers of illegal landings running at around 800 a week). So “filling the planes” is not likely to begin any time soon. As well as this initial cost, the government will also pay ongoing running costs for holding those sent there. Estimates of these costs vary, but (depending where you look) can range from £12,000 per person to almost £100,000.
This scheme is pure theatre. It is said it will “deter” migrants from attempting to reach the UK. I’d beg to differ. It can deal with up to 500 people a year (if the UK manages to send that number). It is very likely the total number reaching these shores illegally this year will be approaching 50,000 – a total which will almost certainly be topped next year. So there’s around one chance in a hundred that if you land here you will end up in Africa. If the chances of drowning in the sea do not deter people from attempting the crossing (and bear in mind that has actually happened, whereas nobody has yet been sent to Rwanda), there is no way that the minimal chance of ending up in Africa will.
// Is there a good reason why we don't make a start by flying Albanians at least back to Albania? //
There has been a failure by Ms Braverman to carry out due processes of law.
There was last minute intervention by Strasbourg which served to remind her of this. Back in the summer of this year, a flight containing 8 asylum seekers to Rwanda was cancelled as a result.
There has been a failure by Ms Braverman to carry out due processes of law.
There was last minute intervention by Strasbourg which served to remind her of this. Back in the summer of this year, a flight containing 8 asylum seekers to Rwanda was cancelled as a result.
// The windrush people did not come here illegally (sic) //
I am referring to the Labour government's decision to destroy the boarding cards of the Windrush generation that came here between 1948 and the early seventies.
This was to affect the children of that generation who were educated and found work here in Britain.
It seems the Home Office eliminated a major source of evidence for their immigration status. As a consequence some have been removed from the UK.
I am referring to the Labour government's decision to destroy the boarding cards of the Windrush generation that came here between 1948 and the early seventies.
This was to affect the children of that generation who were educated and found work here in Britain.
It seems the Home Office eliminated a major source of evidence for their immigration status. As a consequence some have been removed from the UK.
// you'd prefer your government's actions to be supervised by a foreign court. //
On past performance, can we trust any British government to uphold the fundamental rights which safeguard us all.
I see the ECHR being the best of two evils.
In addition, wouldn't leaving the ECHR be to undermine Churchill's vision on human rights?
On past performance, can we trust any British government to uphold the fundamental rights which safeguard us all.
I see the ECHR being the best of two evils.
In addition, wouldn't leaving the ECHR be to undermine Churchill's vision on human rights?
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
Crosswords2 mins ago
Film, Media & TV5 mins ago
Crosswords6 mins ago
Lord Peter Mandelson, Uk Ambassador
News6 mins ago
