Sending U.K. refugees to Rawanda

We're not going to Rwanda! Migrants who have spent months waiting to make the perilous Channel crossing to Britain say they will stay in Calais amid UK's plan to send asylum seekers overseas(daily mail)

Fingers crossed this is the case.

Apologies if this has been mentioned before but it was pointed out in parliaments today how many vaccinations people need if they’re travelling to Rwanda and how many bad things they can catch once they’re there. Something that hadn’t crossed my mind. I think it was Andrew Mitchell who mentioned it. He’s the one, I believe, who worked quite closely with Jo Cox.

Sorry about the paywall acornFairy. It seems to work OK for me although I haven't paid for it.

This is an extract from his letter to Patel:
Evidence of a deterrent effect is highly uncertain and cannot be quantified with sufficient certainty to provide me with the necessary level of assurance over value for money.

I do not believe sufficient evidence can be obtained to demonstrate that the policy will have a deterrent effect significant enough to make the policy value for money.

I don’t buy the idea that time is of the essence. We could just shoot them. That would be quick to implement. We won't though, will we? What have they been doing for the past 2 years since they have been in office? (OK, dealing with a pandemic, fair enough ? ) But why rush to an illegal and immoral action? It’s not my idea, I copied it from somewhere, can’t remember where.

Yes, your idea sounds promising and deserving closer scrutiny and I wonder if the Home Office considered it as an option. The trouble is, another option got there first and, with time being of the essence here, the government has to get on with something.

I admire your optimism, AcornFairy. Does anyone else have any confidence at all that this government will 'get on' with anything?

This appalling scheme has been hurriedly introduced because the tories believe that most of the UK population are raging anti immigration racists and will love it; thus saving their bacon in the upcoming local elections.

Thank you volver. I couldn’t access the report on your link (paywall) but I read The Guardian’s report which said “in his letter Rycroft stressed that he was not saying the policy would not work as a deterrent – just that it was impossible to know either way.”

Yes, your idea sounds promising and deserving closer scrutiny and I wonder if the Home Office considered it as an option. The trouble is, another option got there first and, with time being of the essence here, the government has to get on with something.

I think France has several times offered facilities for asylum seekers to be processed in France but the U.K. Govt has refused.

volver Please can you tell me who - and on what intelligence - told the government that their plan probably won’t stop the traffickers.

Matthew Rycroft, permanent secretary at the Home Office. Who actually works in the Department that Patel heads up.

www.ft.com/content/25fecf58-22c9-48d0-80c7-917a0ff81e3f

This thread is full of ideas for stopping the traffickers, but as you haven't read it, what about this one? Allow people to apply for asylum without actually having to be on UK soil. Process the application as quickly as possible. Work with other countries, where these applications can be made, to ensure that the applicants can have suitable accommodation. That is humane, not loading young men onto planes and flying them to far off countries.

I don’t know what the action should be DaisyAnne. Please tell me what I’m thinking it should be?! No, I’m struggling like most of us to think of something that would work.

As to what I want achieved, I guess that could be summed up as alleviation of suffering. The UK government has a responsibility for the way in which we live in this country, but currently standards are dire in many quarters. The level of child poverty is horrifying as is the fact that so many families are dependant upon food banks. The list goes on but sadly so too do the demands on the public purse. Hopefully a solution – or at least an improvement - to the current immigration issues would free up time and money to deal with suffering in the UK.

volver Please can you tell me who - and on what intelligence - told the government that their plan probably won’t stop the traffickers. And do we know if they had a feasible alternative plan?

There is a pattern here. Discredit and criticise the police because they gave Johnson and Sunak FPN, discredit and criticise Justin Welby because, as a Christian, at Easter, he dared to show humanity and kindness, the next will be the predictable enemies of the state narrative from the Daily Mail and Express, and presumably GB news with criticism of human rights lawyers and judges, who are, as some on here think, a bunch of woke liberals.

AcornFairy Tue 19-Apr-22 10:49:11
but action is long overdue.

Volver echoes my thoughts on your post. I can see what you think that action should be AcornFairy but what do you want it to achieve?

I note that you say that you haven’t read the whole thread, so I will repeat some things that shouldn’t have even needed saying the first time round.

What the government is proposing is not constructive, the government have been told it probably won’t stop the traffickers and it will cost a ridiculous amount of money. It is illegal and it will only target about 1% of the immigrants to this country, but it will disproportionately target young brown men. That tells us something.

It is not humanitarian. How can deporting traumatised people ever be “humanitarian? And it is deporting; they are never allowed back. “Humanitarian” would be helping the people who are so desperate that they will entrust their lives to people smugglers.

We shouldn’t try things just to see if they work. I have said a couple of times. We could just shoot them as they come ashore. That would work. But we wouldn’t do it, would we. (Would we ? ) If an inhumane and illegal proposal is being made, its not for anybody to come up with an alternative, it just needs to be said that what they are doing is wicked and illegal. How can anybody not expect a man of God to say when something is evil? Although many have offered alternatives but just get ignored because it doesn’t suit the governments agenda.

Having arrived rather late at this party please forgive me for not reading the entire thread. But I would just like to pitch in with regard to Justin Welby. The Archbishop’s comments are interesting and his compassionate sentiments laudable but action is long overdue. Until now words have not come up with satisfactory results. Is it right that, now that the government is actually doing something constructive, they get criticised? And criticised, moreover, by someone who should surely be trying to unite behind some kind of humanitarian solution?

Then, if the Rwanda proposals fail, perhaps the Archbishop can come up with something more workable.

How can heterosexual marriage be anything but between a man and a woman? Isn’t that what heterosexual means?

Illuminating to hear the views of a man who seems to change his allegiance as soon as his church disagrees with him. From C of E to the Christian Episcopal Church and now a Catholic. I don't think he will find the majority of his fellow Catholics as right-wing these days as he appears to be. You do seem to go for the crazy far-right guys Urmstongran.

Just saw this on Instagram - bit lighthearted on such a serious subject, but did make me smile:

The people getting mad about the Arch Bishop of Cantebury's sermon are really going to lose it when they find out Jesus was a refugee.

the "dr" and Anne Widdecombe and Mogg.

The unholy trinity.

He sounds an absolute charmer.

The Catholic Church is obviously in a bad way in England if it got the "dr" and Anne Widdecombe and Mogg with his He Is Risen post of twitter ...3 amigos who I'd guess dont have the ear or support of the Pope .A less christian attitude I've rarely come across and never from my catholic family and friends (I'm lapsed ) I doubt the local priests would would support their vile views

??

Trying to work with the Germolene analogy, perhaps he'd rather the nurse refused to consider the patient's notes and just sent him straight to Kigali General Hospital.

Odd that he should believe opinions against the 'woke narrative' are cancelled as he gives opinions against the 'woke narrative' on a national TV news programme.

Wonder what the Catholic brethren make of him?
He was pretty outspoken and direct!

Well, at the risk of being grumpy, I’m so pleased he left the Church of England , my ordained pals are much kinder, compassionate and sensible

He did Coastpath. He actually said it was akin to seeing a nurse when one had stomach pains and she suggested applying Germolene which although nice and kind, didn’t address the problem as a doctor was actually needed to look for cancer. Again, I paraphrase.

So he’s with the Catholic Church then? Still a ‘godly’ man then.
Must just be disillusioned with the Anglican Church as he said in this day and age, differing opinions - against the woke narrative - are indeed getting ‘cancelled’.

Coastpath

Was this former chaplain Dr Gavin Ashenden? He's also been on Fox News, written for The Daily Mail and the Spectator and been interviewed by Rod Liddle and James Dellingpole.

Here's a quote from the Doctor who left his role as Chaplain to the Queen in 2019.

"The real Jesus warned that social justice would never happen in this world, that heterosexual marriage was to be between a man and a woman and that equality had nothing to do with the Kingdom of Heaven".

Did he really suggest that the Archbishop of Canterbury needs to realise that just ‘niceness’ doesn’t help anyone? Isn't that kind of contrary to the whole Christian message?

Thanks Coastpath. What an absolute bigoted plonker.

GillT57

Sounds delightful. No doubt the half a dozen viewers were getting all misty eyed about the veiled reference to good old Enoch.

No mention of Enoch. Nor the ‘rivers of blood’.

I’d never heard of Gavin ..... beforehand. It was an illuminating interview though.

Just an opinion that had a different take on events.
It happens.