Starmer kills off Rwanda plan on first day as PM (Telegraph)

[Destination Unknown]

24 minutes ago, Setton said:

For the same reasons already given, which apparently you're struggling to comprehend.

But those reasons given are just "your" reasons, so what makes you more of an authority on the matter than the former chairman of the 'Equality and Human Rights Commission'?

Edited July 6 by Destination Unknown

[pellinore]

8 minutes ago, Duke Wellington said:

On one thread you are against scrapping ECHR and on this critical of politicians for not carrying through the Rwanda plan.

Make up your mind, you cannot have both. The reason why ECHR needs scrapping is because its that legislation being used to block the Rwanda plan. 

There is no inconsistency on my part at all. The Rwanda Plan was never a serious plan (I think Johnson suggested it in jest some years ago). It has quite rightly been scrapped. There are 80,000 asylum seekers waiting to be processed- do you think the UK was going to build 80,000 homes in Rwanda to accommodate them? And at the rate of 200 per year, it would take 400 years anyway.

Leaving the ECHR and Council of Europe would be so suicidal for the UK it will never happen. 

In the same way as two wrongs don't make a right, two stupid things don't make a sensible one.

[pellinore]

34 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

Expect to see Dunkirk levels of small boats appearing from the fog in the channel.

As they have for the last 4 years. I expect you are sorry you voted for Brexit now. It only started once we left the EU and the Dublin Agreement.

[L.A.T.1961]

27 minutes ago, pellinore said:

As they have for the last 4 years. I expect you are sorry you voted for Brexit now. It only started once we left the EU and the Dublin Agreement.

It started when UK signed up to free movement of people.

"Blair imposed no limits on the number of immigrants who could move to the UK, a decision which even many of the other key EU member states decided not to take.

As Mr Blair’s former Home Secretary Jack Straw confessed back in 2013 in an interview with The Telegraph, it was a “spectacular mistake” to open up Britain borders in 2004."

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1229711/brexit-news-tony-blair-eu-freedom-of-movement-significant-error-spt

The only difference between then and now is there was no great effort made to monitor individuals moving to the UK using legal free movement, numbers were irrelevant as they could not be stopped and instead welcomed in. 

[Setton]

1 hour ago, Duke Wellington said:

On one thread you are against scrapping ECHR and on this critical of politicians for not carrying through the Rwanda plan.

Make up your mind, you cannot have both. The reason why ECHR needs scrapping is because its that legislation being used to block the Rwanda plan. 

It says a lot about the division in this country that you read that post as critical of Starmer for dropping the Rwanda gimmick.

I read it as a positive.

Edited July 6 by Setton

[Setton]

1 hour ago, Destination Unknown said:

But those reasons given are just "your" reasons, so what makes you more of an authority on the matter than the former chairman of the 'Equality and Human Rights Commission'?

Well my position is based on my professional expertise, not politics. 

And not YouTube videos and Twitter either so I'll stick with my explanations over yours.

[Essan]

IMO the solution is simple.

Put the illegal immigrants to work in the fields.   We need them to bring in the harvest.   

Work for 2 years and keep your nose clean, you get to stay.   

Carrots rather than sticks?    Use a problem to solve another problem?


Admittedly, when we tried the same thing 1500 years ago, the immigrants did end up taking over our government and eventually renaming our whole country* ...... (back then we asked them to fight for us, rather than work on the farms, though)


* although to be fair it was a complicated situation and we didn't exactly have one national government in control.   Image the Tories, Labour, Lib Dems, SNP and Reform all fighting each other - literally - for votes and gettng different groups of immigrants to help them.  We was stupid back then  

 

Edited July 6 by Essan

[Duke Wellington]

With all the debating and arguing over illegal immigrants, its now irrelevant.

Le Penn is expected to win in France, and going off the first round its going to be a landslide. For those of you who do not know, she has stated her policy on immigration as being `kick them all out` both legal and illegal. So, in a few months, there will be no illegals arriving by inflatable boat. Of course, there could be problems for the UK in the short-term.

I mean what if 5 million of them attempt to come here? The Starmer government won`t survive that.

[Mark_C]

Illegal immigrants are all future Labor voters, its how they plan to stay in power. He's not sending them away.

[Setton]

18 minutes ago, Mark_C said:

Illegal immigrants are all future Labor voters, its how they plan to stay in power. He's not sending them away.

Looks like they've got plenty of voters for the time being.

412 seats worth.

[Destination Unknown]

2 hours ago, Setton said:

Well my position is based on my professional expertise, not politics. 

And not YouTube videos and Twitter either so I'll stick with my explanations over yours.

And I'll stick with the explanations of the former chairman of the 'Equality and Human Rights Commission' based on his professional expertise over yours.

Edited July 6 by Destination Unknown

[Setton]

2 minutes ago, Destination Unknown said:

And I'll stick with the explanations of the former chairman of the 'Equality and Human Rights Commission' based on his professional expertise over yours.

Yes, I'm sure you will, seeing as you've managed to find an authority figure that just happens to support your point 🙄

Argumentum ad verecundiam.
 

[pellinore]

9 hours ago, OpenMindedSceptic said:

Liebour had the chance to keep this policy and deter criminal gangs profiteering but no, day 1, not even 24 hours into office, they support criminal gangs and entice illegal immigration from France.

Disgraceful.

Rwanda 'an extortionate gimmick', Home Office says

A bit more after Sir Keir Starmer's cancellation of the Rwanda deportation scheme.

The Home Office, now under Yvette Cooper, has commented, saying: "The Rwanda scheme was an extortionate gimmick. 

"Over two years, five people were sent to Rwanda at a cost of at least £60m a person. 

"If the last prime minister had believed it would work, he wouldn't have called an election before a flight went off.

"During the election campaign, the previous government had released 218 people previously detained pending removal to Rwanda were bailed. 

"At this time, only two people remain in detention - these will be bailed in coming days."

UK election latest: Starmer hits out at 'mess' left by Tories - and warns 'tough decisions' to come | Politics News | Sky News

Edited July 6 by pellinore

[Destination Unknown]

2 hours ago, Setton said:

Yes, I'm sure you will, seeing as you've managed to find an authority figure that just happens to support your point 🙄

Argumentum ad verecundiam.
 

Well at least he is an authority figure, unlike you. 🙄

[Setton]

1 minute ago, Destination Unknown said:

Well at least he is an authority figure, unlike you. 🙄

As I said, this is an area of professional interest for me too.

So I'll take my professional expertise over your desperate digging around for one authority figure that supports your claim.

[Destination Unknown]

1 minute ago, Setton said:

As I said, this is an area of professional interest for me too.

So I'll take my professional expertise over your desperate digging around for one authority figure that supports your claim.

So where's your authority figure status then?

Why should I believe your so-called "professional expertise" (yeah right) over the professional expertise of the former chairman of the 'Equality and Human Rights Commission'?

[Setton]

7 minutes ago, Destination Unknown said:

So where's your authority figure status then?

Why should I believe your so-called "professional expertise" (yeah right) over the professional expertise of the former chairman of the 'Equality and Human Rights Commission'?

You can believe whatever you like, as you always do.

But you're not going to convince me with your selective authority figures.

[Destination Unknown]

2 hours ago, Setton said:

You can believe whatever you like, as you always do.

But you're not going to convince me with your selective authority figures.

Equally, you're not going to convince me with what you claim is your own so-called "professional expertise".

[Grey Area]

Rwanda was one of the stupidest schemes conceived by a western government in modern history, Sunak may as well have spent the money on building a wall in the English Chanel.

Essentially it was conceived as a deterrent in the absolute vaguest hope that word would spread amongst immigrants that if they get into the U.K. they won’t stay there and so will stop trying, like the smugglers and traffickers are going to be informing their passengers that they will end up in Rwanda.

Its a joke, a multi million pound joke, and a desperate scheme, from a desperate (former) leader to prove to the electorate that they are tackling immigration, with Rwanda laughing all the way to the bank.

Scrapping this scheme is the right thing to do, maybe invest it in law enforcement and crack down on the gangs of smugglers that exploit desperate people and send them to their deaths.

[OpenMindedSceptic]

8 hours ago, Grey Area said:

Rwanda was one of the stupidest schemes conceived by a western government in modern history, Sunak may as well have spent the money on building a wall in the English Chanel.

Essentially it was conceived as a deterrent in the absolute vaguest hope that word would spread amongst immigrants that if they get into the U.K. they won’t stay there and so will stop trying, like the smugglers and traffickers are going to be informing their passengers that they will end up in Rwanda.

Its a joke, a multi million pound joke, and a desperate scheme, from a desperate (former) leader to prove to the electorate that they are tackling immigration, with Rwanda laughing all the way to the bank.

Scrapping this scheme is the right thing to do, maybe invest it in law enforcement and crack down on the gangs of smugglers that exploit desperate people and send them to their deaths.

It was a weird idea but it worked. So much so that EU countries adopted it too.

Starmer buckled on day 1.

We don't need to invest in cracking down in smugglers, just line up the marines and SBS and SAS and gun down or detain the criminal gangs. 

 

[Setton]

1 hour ago, OpenMindedSceptic said:

It was a weird idea but it worked. So much so that EU countries adopted it too.

Worked so well it cost 250 million and not one flight set off 😄

 

Quote

Starmer buckled on day 1.

Starmer did exactly as he said in his manifesto.

The one he was elected on.

Not so keen on democracy all of a sudden?

Quote

We don't need to invest in cracking down in smugglers, just line up the marines and SBS and SAS and gun down or detain the criminal gangs.

Ok, where do you think these gangs are?

They don't personally ferry people in 😄

Quote

 

 

[Setton]

10 hours ago, Grey Area said:

Scrapping this scheme is the right thing to do, maybe invest it in law enforcement and crack down on the gangs of smugglers that exploit desperate people and send them to their deaths.

Which is exactly the alternative Labour has promised. A Border Command with counter-terrorism level powers to crack down on the gangs responsible.

[OpenMindedSceptic]

5 minutes ago, Setton said:

Worked so well it cost 250 million and not one flight set off 😄

 

Starmer did exactly as he said in his manifesto.

The one he was elected on.

Not so keen on democracy all of a sudden?

Ok, where do you think these gangs are?

They don't personally ferry people in 😄

 

No flights needed. Wow. Worked better than I thought.

Starmer will choose what he delivers, and what he doesn't, he buckled.

Democracy? I'm a huge fan, proportional representation, even better, plus a no government option, even better again.

Where do I think the gangs are? Give me access to the people coming in dinghies for 30 days and I'd know but we've had years, so the public servants know, the security forces know... Liebour just lack the balls to follow up with anything... so we wait for Le Pen.

They don't ferry them in, like drug dealers don't smuggle the drugs in... what's your point? We stop because Liebour are in? 

[Setton]

12 minutes ago, OpenMindedSceptic said:

No flights needed. Wow. Worked better than I thought.

Starmer will choose what he delivers, and what he doesn't, he buckled.

Democracy? I'm a huge fan, proportional representation, even better, plus a no government option, even better again.

Yeah I bet you are now 🙄 Strange that you never were until this election.

Quote

Where do I think the gangs are? Give me access to the people coming in dinghies for 30 days and I'd know

Well, no, you wouldn't. Because they also don't know.

You really have absolutely no idea how organised crime works, do you?

Quote

but we've had years, so the public servants know, the security forces know... Liebour just lack the balls to follow up with anything... so we wait for Le Pen.

Except Labour are following up. But instead of a gimmick that achieved nothing but waste taxpayers money, they're sending the equivalent of MI5 after the gangs.

I've asked before and you've ignored it - do you honestly think MI5 couldn't deal with these gangs if it was their area?

Quote

They don't ferry them in, like drug dealers don't smuggle the drugs in... what's your point?

My point is, you're suggesting to get SF to shoot the gangs. You need to find them first. They don't ferry people in, they abandon them in a small boat to get to shore or be picked up by the coastguard.

What did you think they did? Paddled them to shore then asked the police to pretty please let them go back to France for another batch? 😄

Quote

We stop because Liebour are in? 

Who said anything about stopping? You're completely ignoring that Labour has clearly set out their plan to stop the gangs and it's a much more detailed and realistic plan than Rwanda ever was.

[OpenMindedSceptic]

3 hours ago, Setton said:

Yeah I bet you are now 🙄 Strange that you never were until this election.

Well, no, you wouldn't. Because they also don't know.

You really have absolutely no idea how organised crime works, do you?

Except Labour are following up. But instead of a gimmick that achieved nothing but waste taxpayers money, they're sending the equivalent of MI5 after the gangs.

I've asked before and you've ignored it - do you honestly think MI5 couldn't deal with these gangs if it was their area?

My point is, you're suggesting to get SF to shoot the gangs. You need to find them first. They don't ferry people in, they abandon them in a small boat to get to shore or be picked up by the coastguard.

What did you think they did? Paddled them to shore then asked the police to pretty please let them go back to France for another batch? 😄

Who said anything about stopping? You're completely ignoring that Labour has clearly set out their plan to stop the gangs and it's a much more detailed and realistic plan than Rwanda ever was.

Just addressing your points l:

I have never been asked about proportional representation nor am I on record of saying anything before. You're confused between me and someone else.

I understand organised crime deeply. 

Liebour are not sending MI5 after the gangs. They are following up or something equally wishy washy.

MI5 couldn't deal with the gangs unless they are on UK soil. MI6 is for foreign matters.

As for your point on the criminals not being in the dinghies... oh dear. That is obvious. But there's always one gang master minimum per dinghy plus dozens of witnesses ie the migrants. 30 days. 30 days is all I'd need. Follow the money, then the names, then the tribes, then start poking around, then suggest they really should come and visit in person. 30 days.

Liebour won't stop the immigrants. Starmer is in bed with Davos. They need instability to steal money from us via tax and wars.