The Home Office and UK government policy concerning asylum seekers/Rwanda deportations

[Dan Can]

The above tweet which you haven't actually commented on is completely inexcusable,

The tweet was about the business model of the people smugglers. I offered a valid alternative of destroying their business model.

What I do find distasteful is resorting to insults aimed at those who have a different ideology than your own.
Let's use our persuasive argument to convince people, not resort to insults.

 

[eatmorecheese]

The tweet was about the business model of the people smugglers. I offered a valid alternative of destroying their business model.

What I do find distasteful is resorting to insults aimed at those who have a different ideology than your own.
Let's use our persuasive argument to convince people, not resort to insults.

Yeah, but...

A lot of this isn't 'ideology' as I understand it. Just cruelty. Performative cruelty. It's ok to attack that.

Sometimes, prejudice can't be countered by persuasive argument.

 

[teqniq]

The tweet was about the business model of the people smugglers. I offered a valid alternative of destroying their business model.

What I do find distasteful is resorting to insults aimed at those who have a different ideology than your own.
Let's use our persuasive argument to convince people, not resort to insults.

No it was about more than that and many people have offered the solution you have suggested before you presented it here. Moreover that solution would as you have rightly suggested close down their operations overnight. But rather than do the right thing we have the following: The tweet seemed to me at least to display the venal paucity in the imagination of the vermin, reducing all to a business model the subtext of which is that he seems to show sympathy for the enterprise whilst offering a non-solution of deporting arrivals on day one of their arrival.

 

[Dan Can]

Yeah, but...

A lot of this isn't 'ideology' as I understand it. Just cruelty. Performative cruelty. It's ok to attack that.

For sure, some ideology is cruel, but it's still ideology, especially if it is relevant to a political or economic policy, even if we consider it cruel or perverted.

Sometimes, prejudice can't be countered by persuasive argument.

I agree. For some prejudice is taught from a young age, by parents and peers. Some of those 'radicalised' bigots can't comprehend the origin of their bigotry. But surley the MO ought to be education, not insult or abuse. I thought such MO's of corrective behaviour had gone out of fashion.

 

[Dan Can]

..The tweet seemed to me ....

Well I guess we all have our own version of what the tweet was about.
Isn't it normal for different people to take different views of another's comments?

 

[likesfish]

How much longer can they carry on with this, I wonder?

Former British army chief dramatically intervenes in government’s Rwanda policy

Exclusive: Lord Dannatt urged the home secretary not to send migrants to a country ‘under the shadow of genocide’

www.independent.co.uk

I mean its just another woke trendy lefty bed wetting namby bamby guardian reading sissy what does he know about the real world

 

[teqniq]

FFS:

Braverman creating power to seize boat migrants’ phones despite watchdog probe

Exclusive: Probe is ongoing into an unlawful phone seizures by Home Office that secretly operated until late 2020

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Chilli.s]

Gotta ask ourselves if this is a good use of government time setting up laws we dont need

 

[magneze]

That's mostly what they do tho..

 

[teqniq]

Some people are just complete scumbags:

Asylum seekers ‘abused and intimidated by staff in Home Office hotels’

Current and former workers of the subcontractor Serco have spoken to an investigation about a culture of ‘institutional abuse’ by management at five hotels in and around Liverpool

www.theguardian.com

 

[danny la rouge]

Wasn’t sure where to put this. But just looking at the headlines this morning and seeing Labour being “tough” on immigration. All this language has an effect, and it’s not a good one.

Labour really are going for it, though. What with Starmer going on about “stiffer sentences for protesters”, this talk about Britain not being a “soft touch for immigrants”, and of course his appalling comment “I think we’re recruiting too many people from overseas into the health service.” They know what they’re doing, and it’s dangerous and cynical.

 

[teqniq]

This is nasty but unsurprising, alas:

UK provided £3m to Turkish border forces to stop migrants, FOI reveals

Investigation shows Home Office funds ‘return and reintegration assistance’ and provides equipment and training to Turkish police

www.theguardian.com

 

[teqniq]

To borrow brogdale 's phrase here's hoping we have the last laugh on ratboy:

Rishi Sunak laughs with his hands in his pockets as he watches immigration raid

The Prime Minister joined Home Office and Metropolitan Police officers in Harrow, northwest London for an immigration visit - but he himself dodged some questions about the Privileges Committee report

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[teqniq]

Contract awarded to same company that got criticised for it's handling of Covid quarantine hotels. I smell a rat. Someone need to do some digging on the connections this company has:

Revealed: Australian firm awarded £1.6bn contract for asylum barges and accommodation

Exclusive: Fury over astonishing sum to operate barges and run services to house asylum seekers in Britain

www.independent.co.uk

 

[teqniq]

Shabby as fuck. Whilst pre-Berexit the UK had access to Frontex data for free the proposed deal will see the UK have to pay for limited access:

Sunak Faces Cabinet Row Over Post-Brexit EU Borders Deal

For those unfamiliar Frontex is largely responsible for the 'fortress Europe' policy of crating a hostile environment for refugees/asylum seekers seeking to enter Europe mainly via the Mediterranean.

 

[teqniq]

What the actual fuck?

Child migrants to be sent back to hotel where 136 vanished

A Brighton hotel where unaccompanied young people seeking asylum disappeared is to be brought back into use by the Home Office

www.theguardian.com

 

[teqniq]

Bit of good news which I hope sticks, plus this tweet has made me smile:

 

[Fedayn]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66045323

 

[skyscraper101]

HA HA

</Nelson>

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

But:

But the Lord Chief Justice agreed with the High Court's decision that Rwanda is a safe third country.

ffs, who are these fuckers?

 

[cupid_stunt]

On Question Time in Exeter yesterday, where the audience was selected to reflect how people voted in the last GE in England and therefore more Tory voters than any other party, when asked if they supported the Rwanda policy, not a single hand went up.

 

[brogdale]

On Question Time in Exeter yesterday, where the audience was selected to reflect how people voted in the last GE in England and therefore more Tory voters than any other party, when asked if they supported the Rwanda policy, not a single hand went up.

Shy racists, and why, in the age of such regularly updated poll-of-poll trackers, do they fix the audience based on the Dec 2019 GE share of the vote?

 

[Serge Forward]

Shy racists, and why, in the age of such regularly updated poll-of-poll trackers, do they fix the audience based on the Dec 2019 GE share of the vote?

 

[cupid_stunt]

Shy racists,

Could be, but you would expect at least some would put their hands up, maybe a lot of people have dropped support for it because the cost of it per person that has recently been released.

A Home Office economic assessment released Monday night revealed that the Rwanda plan — which was announced in spring 2022 but is yet to see a single flight take off amid legal challenge — will cost an estimated £169,000 per migrant.

According to the government department’s own figures, it will cost an estimated £63,000 more to relocate an asylum seeker than it would to keep them in the U.K.

Britain’s plan to deport migrants to Rwanda will cost £169,000 per person

Home Office figures suggest it will cost more to relocate an asylum seeker than it would to let them stay in the U.K.

www.politico.eu

and why, in the age of such regularly updated poll-of-poll trackers, do they fix the audience based on the Dec 2019 GE share of the vote?

Looks like I was wrong on that, it include both voting history AND intention.

Audience members are selected by the 'audience producer' based on age, gender, occupation, ethnicity, disability status, voting intention, voting history, and party membership. LINK

 

[MickiQ]

This plan is probably dead now, If they lose at the Supreme Court then they will have to redraft the legislation and start all over again. We're realistically only a year away from a GE so expect lots of talk of re-elect us and we will "Stop The Boats" but I stand by my original prediction that the total number sent to Rwanda will be a very round one as in 0. They've basically spent £140m on an election advert.

 

[brogdale]

Could be, but you would expect at least some would put their hands up, maybe a lot of people have dropped support for it because the cost of it per person that has recently been released.

Britain’s plan to deport migrants to Rwanda will cost £169,000 per person

Home Office figures suggest it will cost more to relocate an asylum seeker than it would to let them stay in the U.K.

www.politico.eu

Looks like I was wrong on that, it include both voting history AND intention.

Thanks for that, but that guff about history/intention almost certainly still is used to enable them to try to create the 44% C, 32% L, 12% LD, 22% 'Other'/non etc. balance; hence why Bruce has taken to saying there are more supporters of the vermin than for any other party.

 

[Ax^]

This plan is probably dead now, If they lose at the Supreme Court then they will have to redraft the legislation and start all over again. We're realistically only a year away from a GE so expect lots of talk of re-elect us and we will "Stop The Boats" but I stand by my original prediction that the total number sent to Rwanda will be a very round one as in 0. They've basically spent £140m on an election advert.

it odd it 140m on an election advert for braverman not sunak...

come out like the brave women who want to stop immigration but the woke lefties would not let her

already accepted defeat in the new one maybe

 

[Karl Masks]

On Question Time in Exeter yesterday, where the audience was selected to reflect how people voted in the last GE in England and therefore more Tory voters than any other party, when asked if they supported the Rwanda policy, not a single hand went up.

 

[Karl Masks]

This plan is probably dead now, If they lose at the Supreme Court then they will have to redraft the legislation and start all over again. We're realistically only a year away from a GE so expect lots of talk of re-elect us and we will "Stop The Boats" but I stand by my original prediction that the total number sent to Rwanda will be a very round one as in 0. They've basically spent £140m on an election advert.

Big if, though, surely?

The judgement wasn't unanimous anyway. Either way she gets to stoke culture war coal; win or lose. How long before the right wing press resurrect their 'Enemy of the state' headline in response? Haven't seen today's Mail but surely

 

[Karl Masks]

This is the consequence of years of poisonous media and mendacious politics:



Simultaneously hilarious and harrowing