Sending U.K. refugees to Rawanda

volver

I'm getting heartily tired of the "we keep quiet for fear of the nasty lefty echo chamber" excuse.

Stand up for what you think or take the consequences. Right wing racists aren't renown for being shrinking violets.

And yes, I am aware of the irony of what I've just said.

Thank god for the young.

The question isn't being asked about what is actually planned. The question asks about sending people to Rwanda to be "processed". If you actually read what's being proposed, the idea is that these people would be sent to Rwanda and being forced to settle there. They would not have the right to settle in the UK.

It is suggested that lone children will also be forcibly transported. They will be totally vulnerable to sex traders and such.

growstuff, I think we all grasped that on day one.

Germanshepherdsmum

*growstuff*, I think we all grasped that on day one.

Really? So why is the question in the poll still being framed as it is?

volver Right wing racists aren't renown for being shrinking violets.
What a shocking and nasty thing to say. I don't think I've come across any such people on here other than your name-calling. This is exactly why people don't want to post, because they get called such nasty things if they disagree with the so-called 'left-wing echo chamber'.

Spot on Chestnut. Same if they simply posted a thumbs up emoji as suggested earlier. I think it’s appalling to call people who support this policy racists.

If you disagree with the right wing echo chamber you're a lefty, lovey guardianista. It works both ways.

Chestnut

volver Right wing racists aren't renown for being shrinking violets.
What a shocking and nasty thing to say. I don't think I've come across any such people on here other than your name-calling. This is exactly why people don't want to post, because they get called such nasty things if they disagree with the so-called 'left-wing echo chamber'.

I’m afraid you are very wrong in admonishing volver she is absolutely correct in describing some posts as being right wing and racist. The posts have been zapped and rightly so.

Volver it wasn't a question of intolerance of belief, nor a defence of the governments' stance, but a strongly held view that those who live in enormous houses (or palaces) and have seemingly done little to accommodate refugees are in no position to criticise. I cannot see anything in my posts that could be deemed a criticism of the Christian faith - it's hypocrisy that I despise, not deeply held belief - and that is a separate issue.

Chestnut

volver Right wing racists aren't renown for being shrinking violets.
What a shocking and nasty thing to say. I don't think I've come across any such people on here other than your name-calling. This is exactly why people don't want to post, because they get called such nasty things if they disagree with the so-called 'left-wing echo chamber'.

Did you see some of the deleted posts Chestnut? They were right wing and racist. Very racist.

No I didn't as I wasn't following this thread, knowing how aggressive it would turn out! For some reason I changed my mind. ?

My own view is that I am very concerned about the population growth in this country, which has been very high this century. As I said, this causes housing, transport, education and medical problems, amongst other things. If for example you say the NHS needs immigrant workers then this just brings more people in the country and the problem keeps growing. When will it ever end? When will we ever have enough homes for everyone without our expanding cities swallowing up everything around them? These things are already happening and they worry me.

How much do people believe is true about what the Tory Party is saying regarding this project? Leaving aside whether it is necessary or not, how much do you believe about the process and the costs.

So much has been lies and obfuscation. You could believe they are playing to people's prejudices and anxieties simply for votes. and that it will never happen. I would imagine most people would accept that; that's what the Tories do. Remember the promises on the bus. Remember the promises of new hospitals.

You could believe they simply intend "people like them" to make money out of this; that's what Tories do. Remember the PPE contracts. Just like that, the responsibility for lives will be outsourced to people who, if the past is anything to go by, have no knowledge in this area at all.

So who will get the job of transporting the asylum seekers? This will no doubt be angled towards Tory donors; that's what the Tories do. Therefore, more money for the Tory coffers as the backhanders flood in. I can see no example that would give confidence that we will be good value for public money. Even the Home Office can't bring themselves to believe that and those running it are hardly "looney lefties".

The government is also outsourcing the care and subsequent training of these people - should that actually happen. We can all list unkept promises. Why should this be different? Useful cheap labour is not training but it happens so often and now they would not be responsible. When laws are broken over the treatment of these asylum seekers there will be another Sue Grey/Russia Report moment, while yet another report is set up and never released. The responsibility will be outsourced with the money, from the Home Office.

The whole concept is illegal. I wonder how they can outsource that risk?

There are also the bribes needed for officials and politicians in Rwanda in order to get them to be part of this. We know the accommodation they displayed is about as much to do with the Rwandan government as the car that Sunak put petrol in was to do with him. What next? The certain answer is no one has planned so no one knows; certainly not this government.

So what we are doing is something we could do equally well here, with oversight of the money and with the money going back into our economy. We could then insist that this government is competent for once and speeds up the processing, providing jobs in this country to do that.

If these people are entitled to stay we get them into the jobs they come here to do. We know they are net contributors to the economy and the Tories intend to export that to their new bestie (rich) mates in Rowanda. If they are not entitled to stay here we remove them as quickly as possible instead of keeping them for years in misery.

Chestnut, I have posted before about population growth in the UK. It is due to the old living longer ( that'll be me, and maybe you). We have, proportionally, fewer young people than ever before. The elderly place considerable demands on the NHS. I think that this has implications for future planning, but it's important to separate this from discussions about immigration.
I am aware that there is some irony here- my (Italian, Catholic) Grandmother had 13 children! The next generation learned about contraception: I am an only child...

Stephen Kinnock

The Home Office has now admitted that the cost of Priti Patel's Rwanda deal is enormously high and there is no evidence at all that it will have a significant impact on Channel Crossings. This unworkable and extortionate policy is unravelling quickly.

The letter is copied below

Home Secretary
13 April 2022

Dear Home Secretary,

MIGRATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP
This letter summarises my assessment of the Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP) as the responsible Accounting Officer.

You are looking to enter into an agreement with the Government of Rwanda (GoR). The negotiated agreement will enable the processing of asylum claims which are inadmissible under our current asylum system in Rwanda. Under this approach the UK’s legal obligations end once an individual is relocated to Rwanda, and GoR takes on the legal responsibility for that individual and for processing their claim in line with the Refugee Convention.

You have made clear the rationale behind the MEDP, with the underlying policy acting as part of a suite of measures in the New Plan for Immigration to break the business model of people smugglers while maintaining a fair and robust immigration and borders system. The policy is also intended to support the Government in its objectives of preventing tragic loss of life in the Channel, deterring hazardous and illegal journeys to the UK and maintaining public trust and confidence in border controls. I also recognise the scale of the issue we are facing. The asylum system is costing the taxpayer over £1.5 billion per annum – the highest amount in over two decades, and current spend on hotels is c. £4.7 million per day including those who have arrived through resettlement programmes. I note the priority you have placed on these measures over the last year.

My role as Permanent Secretary is to ensure that the Home Office delivers your objectives. It is also my personal responsibility as Principal Accounting Officer to ensure that the Department’s use of its resources is appropriate and consistent with the requirements set out in Managing Public Money (MPM).

The Accounting Officer advice that I have received comprises a rigorous assessment of the regularity, propriety, feasibility and value for money of this policy, drawing on legal, policy and operational expertise. I have satisfied myself that it is regular, proper and feasible for this policy to proceed. We have incorporated learning from Windrush in developing this policy and the plans for its implementation.

However, this advice highlights the uncertainty surrounding the value for money of the proposal. I recognise that, despite the high cost of this policy, there are potentially significant savings to be realised from deterring people entering the UK illegally. Value for money of the policy is dependent on it being effective as a deterrent. 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. This does not mean that the MEDP cannot have the appropriate deterrent effect; just that it there is not sufficient evidence for me to conclude that it will.

Therefore, I will require your written instruction to proceed. I consider it is entirely appropriate for you to make a judgement to proceed in the light of the illegal migration challenge the country is facing. I will of course follow this direction and ensure the Department continues to support the implementation of the policy to the very best of our abilities.

Should you issue a direction, I am required to copy all relevant papers to the Comptroller and Auditor General (who will inform the Public Accounts Committee) and the Treasury Officer of Accounts. I anticipate publishing our exchange of direction letters as early as practicable.

Yours sincerely,

Matthew Rycroft CBE
Permanent Secretary

I have read all the posts on here and have already commented on the thread (see post by grannyactivist Thu 14-Apr-22 21:44:52).

Until this month I led a homelessness charity, so I have an informed understanding of the housing crisis - I have also personally housed homeless people, both temporarily and permanently. (We currently have a 20 year old living with us.) I have also shared my home with asylum seekers and refugees, so I have had personal experience of living with these people and discovering their stories. I know that there will always be individuals who are gaming the system, but I would rather risk letting those people in than turning away someone who has been traumatised by the experiences that led them to flee to the U.K.

In this country we really can afford to do better both for our own homeless population and for those who seek safety here. The reason we (our government) do not is for ideological reasons not financial ones.

Chocolatelovinggran

Chestnut, I have posted before about population growth in the UK. It is due to the old living longer ( that'll be me, and maybe you). We have, proportionally, fewer young people than ever before. The elderly place considerable demands on the NHS. I think that this has implications for future planning, but it's important to separate this from discussions about immigration.
I am aware that there is some irony here- my (Italian, Catholic) Grandmother had 13 children! The next generation learned about contraception: I am an only child...

Agreed that the elderly put demands on the NHS and maybe housing but not really on transport and not on education. In London for instance, the London bus and taxi drivers are saying how much worse the traffic has become just in the last few years. They should know as they drive those streets every day. It shows that our infrastructure is struggling to cope and that is not down to the elderly.

Coastpath

If you disagree with the right wing echo chamber you're a lefty, lovey guardianista. It works both ways.

Hear hear

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Where have I said you are deeply unpleasant? And who is the other one? I have no idea what you're talking about.

Other poster is Chestnut who dislikes her neighbour who is young Mum with two young children because she thinks she has come here to take advantage of our benefits system
I haven't called anyone a liar. We don't know what you have said is true, it is just someone in your street. How are you privy to her settlement status , who pays her bills/rent etc

Germanshepherdsmum

JaneJudge

we only have your word for it! she could be completely imaginary

What a very unpleasant comment to a regular poster. I hope you apologise.

here
and I am not going to apologise, I haven't said anything wrong

You have suggested that Chestnut was lying about her neighbour. She is a long established poster. You have said something very wrong.

I didn't, I said we only had her word for it

I'm with JaneJudge.

Chestnut didn't really seem to know the woman. She made assumptions about her life and how it was funded. She doesn't know what the lady's husband does for a living. None of this information seems to be based on first hand knowledge of the facts of this woman's life.

Despite these omissions the observations have been described as "Just one example of working the system" and described as facts by Chestnut in a later post.

If this woman and her family are relying on benefits then the benefits agency are obviously very happy with her situation. How is she playing the system?