Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

UK Govt 'loses' another 4250 asylum seekers, on top of 17k last year


pellinore

Recommended Posts

On top of the 17,000 asylum seekers 'lost' last year, the government has now lost contact with 85% of the people it had earmarked for illegal removal to Rwanda. 

At Prime Minister's Questions, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer claimed the government had "lost contact" more than 4,000 people it had lined up for removal to Rwanda.

It follows a Daily Telegraph story - citing Home Office documents - saying that only 700 of the original 5,000 people earmarked for deportation are in "regular contact" with officials.

"Spending £400m on a plan not to get anybody to Rwanda whilst losing 4,000 people is not a plan, it's a farce," said Sir Keir.

However, with an honesty noticeably absent from UK Govt Ministers, Rwandan President Kagame has said he will return the money once the farce has reached its conclusion:

Rwanda's President Paul Kagame has said he would return money to the UK if no asylum seekers are sent to his country under his deal with the government.

The UK has paid £240m to Rwanda, with a further £50m to come. So far, no asylum seekers have been sent to the country.

Asked why he was taking the money, Mr Kagame said: "It's only going to be used if those people will come. If they don't come, we can return the money."

 Rwandan president Paul Kagame suggests UK could get money back - BBC News

Edited by pellinore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to UK Govt 'loses' another 4250 asylum seekers, on top of 17k last year
 
5 hours ago, pellinore said:

On top of the 17,000 asylum seekers 'lost' last year, the government has now lost contact with 85% of the people it had earmarked for "illegal" (?) removal to Rwanda. 

At Prime Minister's Questions, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer claimed the government had "lost contact" more than 4,000 people it had lined up for removal to Rwanda.

"Spending £400m on a plan not to get anybody to Rwanda whilst losing 4,000 people is not a plan, it's a farce," said Sir Keir.

And that is the sheer hypocrisy of most of our current politicians, in all Parties. The only way to stop undocumented migrants absconding into the community is to either force them to wear ankle trackers, or place them in secure, guarded accommodation. Yet none of them, especially Starmer, would even support either one of those sensible moves, and neither would the namby-pamby, wishy-washy bleeding-heart do-gooder 'Human Rights' brigade that think we should forever let an unending stream of undocumented migrants into the country uninvited either, because the first thing they would screech is that it's an abuse of "their" 'Human Rights'.

 

5 hours ago, pellinore said:

Rwanda's President Paul Kagame has said he would return money to the UK if no asylum seekers are sent to his country under his deal with the government.

Asked why he was taking the money, Mr Kagame said: "It's only going to be used if those people will come. If they don't come, we can return the money."

Aha! So despite all your claims to the contrary elsewhere, the Rwanda scheme will cost us nothing, unless it is actually used. 🤦

Edited by Destination Unknown
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Destination Unknown said:

Aha! So despite all your claims to the contrary elsewhere, the Rwanda scheme will cost us nothing, unless it is actually used. 

A Rwanda government spokesman has since clarified they're under no obligation to refund anything but would consider refunding a portion of the funds which were allocated to handling migrants, noting that the 400 million is allocated to a range of budgets not all for handling migrants.

So the scheme has already and will continue to cost many millions even if not used.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Are you seriously suggesting that Keir Starmer & Labour would do a much better job of tackling illegal immigration?.

https://order-order.com/2023/03/14/leftie-lawyer-starmer-won-landmark-benefits-for-fake-asylum-seekers-case/

For anyone still interested in reality, she never said the above quote. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Setton said:

For anyone still interested in reality, she never said the above quote. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/metro.co.uk/2017/08/23/mp-shares-tweet-saying-abuse-victims-should-shut-their-mouths-for-good-of-diversity-6872181/amp/

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Destination Unknown said:

Aha! So despite all your claims to the contrary elsewhere, the Rwanda scheme will cost us nothing, unless it is actually used. 🤦

President Kagame's money is safe, Sunak will never drop the Rwanda scheme, although it is disliked equally on the left and right of his own party, and detested by the public who largely don't want the UK to break international law and won't work however he tries to apply it. It is all he has left. It has only got to last till the GE anyway, then it will be someone else's problem.

Btw, the Rwanda Policy was never a serious policy. It was just made up by Johnson to distract the public, but the far right loonies decided to run with it:

As a result of Johnson’s Brexit failures, cooperation with the French authorities became difficult and returning asylum seekers almost impossible. Johnson came up with his “dead cat” – namely to send people he claimed were “illegal” immigrants to Rwanda.

He could have picked almost anywhere. Madagascar? Antarctica? Paraguay? But he picked Rwanda as his distraction from a problem which he could not solve.

To understand Britain’s Rwanda policy you have to understand Boris Johnson and dead cats – Gavin Esler (msn.com)

Edited by pellinore
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, pellinore said:

On top of the 17,000 asylum seekers 'lost' last year, the government has now lost contact with 85% of the people it had earmarked for illegal removal to Rwanda. 

At Prime Minister's Questions, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer claimed the government had "lost contact" more than 4,000 people it had lined up for removal to Rwanda.

It follows a Daily Telegraph story - citing Home Office documents - saying that only 700 of the original 5,000 people earmarked for deportation are in "regular contact" with officials.

"Spending £400m on a plan not to get anybody to Rwanda whilst losing 4,000 people is not a plan, it's a farce," said Sir Keir.

However, with an honesty noticeably absent from UK Govt Ministers, Rwandan President Kagame has said he will return the money once the farce has reached its conclusion:

Rwanda's President Paul Kagame has said he would return money to the UK if no asylum seekers are sent to his country under his deal with the government.

The UK has paid £240m to Rwanda, with a further £50m to come. So far, no asylum seekers have been sent to the country.

Asked why he was taking the money, Mr Kagame said: "It's only going to be used if those people will come. If they don't come, we can return the money."

 Rwandan president Paul Kagame suggests UK could get money back - BBC News

How very careless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Setton said:

For anyone still interested in reality, she never said the above quote. 

3 hours ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Apparently she didn't actually say or write those words directly - she "accidentally" (make of that what you will) liked and shared something on Twitter that someone else wrote. For that reason, I've removed the image/quote as it implies she was the source of that statement when technically (and legally) she wasn't.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

How very careless.

Stupidity, probably. Listen to this:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, pellinore said:

Stupidity, probably. Listen to this:

 

SMH.  😞

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, itsnotoutthere said:

So she didn't say it. Meaning your post is libelous at best. Which is why it's been removed.

Again, for anyone who actually cares, the retweet was deleted within minutes so not in response to any criticism or anything. Just a mistake.

But of course, we know you won't let reality get in the way.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
3 hours ago, pellinore said:

Stupidity, probably. Listen to this:

 

Donkeys led by donkeys. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Conservative MP has now said (in an official Conservative outlet) that we need to invade France and get "boots on the ground". We just need to be determined and diplomatic (and I would add mad):

Our borders must be stronger, and in order to achieve that we must explore negotiating with our continental neighbours, pointing out that they would regain control of their overrun towns from Dunkirk to Boulogne if they allow that, in addition to the people we already have in their command and control centres, we put British boots on the ground in Northern France to assist their efforts.

This is a relatively small piece of coastline with only a few practical places to launch these boats.  We have drone technology and efficient armed forces.  We should easily be able to stop the boats from even reaching the beaches and destroy them.  In a very short time I believe that the migration route will stop.  We will save lives, free up the French ports and stop illegal entry in this manner.

All it requires is determination and diplomacy of the highest order."

Giles Watling MP to Support Rwanda Bill, But Calls for "Boots on the Ground" to Stop Small Boats | Giles Watling

Edited by pellinore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Setton said:

So she didn't say it. Meaning your post is libelous at best. Which is why it's been removed.

Again, for anyone who actually cares, the retweet was deleted within minutes so not in response to any criticism or anything. Just a mistake.

But of course, we know you won't let reality get in the way.

From what I understand, 'liking' a Tweet is condoned, 're-tweeting' is actionable if the original Tweet is defamatory. If it is deleted within minutes, she'll probably get away with it. (This is assuming the original Tweet is taken to court and found to be defamatory, ofc. A retweet is considered a new presentation of the material). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.