VISIT RWANDA

Satriale's Pork Store said:
Extensive sponsorship at Arsenal....

Can't be all that bad a place to go and visit.

We don't see adverts to visit Gaza or Damascus after all?

Surely then, should therefore be ok for refugees fleeing their homelands in fear of their lives?

Crack on Rishi lad! 😜👍
Click to expand...
That processing centre where they will all be staying looks the Dogs bollocks.

Separate bedrooms, on suite toilet/shower room, lounge, Kitchen, TV, Wifi.

Beats any barge hands down in fact it’s a higher standard than some hotels I’ve stayed in over the years.

Indeed crack on Rishi lad. 👍
 
Jaffa_The_Hut said:
That processing centre where they will all be staying looks the Dogs bollocks.

Separate bedrooms, on suite toilet/shower room, lounge, Kitchen, TV, Wifi.

Beats any barge hands down in fact it’s a higher standard than some hotels I’ve stayed in over the years.

Indeed crack on Rishi lad. 👍
Click to expand...
Or, we get to see what they want us to see.
 
We paid Rwanda £6 million to build a housing estate for them. They've been sold to locals already.

This is the biggest scam of all time. We've given billions away for what? We expect to send 500 refugees before the end of the year at a cost of about £5 million each. Give me the £5 million and one can take my place.

As always follow the money. Who is making money from this? I see Infosys have contracts as part of it.
 
Weird logic from the UN here..

www.independent.co.uk

Rishi Sunak urged to think again on Rwanda plan after five die in Channel

Father ‘saw his little daughter die before his eyes’ says charity worker after Channel rescue
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk

So because there has been a tragedy, we shouldn't have a deterrent to try and discourage people from coming and stop tragedies like this?

Makes no sense.

France is a safe country and anyone putting their kids into a death trap of a boat to cross from there is completely irresponsible.

Not that the scheme will completely stop it anyway, but it can only help discourage.
 
JJpool said:
Weird logic from the UN here..

www.independent.co.uk

Rishi Sunak urged to think again on Rwanda plan after five die in Channel

Father ‘saw his little daughter die before his eyes’ says charity worker after Channel rescue
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk

So because there has been a tragedy, we shouldn't have a deterrent to try and discourage people from coming and stop tragedies like this?

Makes no sense.

France is a safe country and anyone putting their kids into a death trap of a boat to cross from there is completely irresponsible.

Not that the scheme will completely stop it anyway, but it can only help discourage.
Click to expand...
If the threat of drowning in the English Channel isn't a deterrent how will being transported to Rwanda be one?
 
Old_Laytonian said:
If the threat of drowning in the English Channel isn't a deterrent how will being transported to Rwanda be one?
Click to expand...
It's quite simple, people are willing to risk a crossing to get to treasure Island, because they know if they make it they'll stay.

If when Rwanda gets going people never make to our shores, then it'll be a deterrent.

Although I've openly said it's not the full solution as the numbers are just too small and probably too costly, where physically returning people would be far more effective.

If you look at the article I posted and the point I made, it's questioning the UN saying the policy should stop because of a tragedy, when it's likely to be more of a deterrent than a draw, so where's is the logic there?
 
How on earth could a young girl be crushed to death when with her dad
I watched the news bulletin on the smigglers and escapees attacking French police

This trade in misery needs to stop ,do I think flights to Rwanda will stop these small boars - nah its a gimmick .

We need to address in a serious manner why these young men ( for thats what the majority are) are so hell bent on getting to the UK and address or stop what is being an incentive. I'm no daily mail crackpot but many of them looked well kempt and healthy .They claim to want to work or,I have noticed,get an education ??
Are we really saying they squeezed onto that dinghy, refused offers of rescue and in process a child and others were killed.

Do resources need to be refocused on Intel and smash the smuggling gangs - surely french and British security services can smash these ,and I mean go in hard and sentence heavily.

It all seems bizarre as well as horrific - the aim seems to be put yourself, and in rare cases ,your family at high risk, jump in an unstable boat and throw yourself at the mercy of rescue services and claim asylum.
Wtf are they being told about the uk??

I have no idea how to stop all this but all this needs is a right wing populist to step in and this situation could get even worse ,take a bow Mr Farage.
 
JJpool said:
If when Rwanda gets going people never make to our shores, then it'll be a deterrent.
Click to expand...
You do know how many they are planning to send over there, don't you? Less than 1% of the backlog?

I don't know what's worse. Your innate lack of compassion or your complete inability to think for yourself.
 
JJpool said:
It's quite simple, people are willing to risk a crossing to get to treasure Island, because they know if they make it they'll stay.

If when Rwanda gets going people never make to our shores, then it'll be a deterrent.

Although I've openly said it's not the full solution as the numbers are just too small and probably too costly, where physically returning people would be far more effective.

If you look at the article I posted and the point I made, it's questioning the UN saying the policy should stop because of a tragedy, when it's likely to be more of a deterrent than a draw, so where's is the logic there?
Click to expand...
Yet all those interviewed in Calais yesterday said the threat of Rwanda made no difference.

We took in more refugees from Rwanda last year than we sent Home Secretaries (which was quite a few)
 
It’s probably very unfair, but I watched Hotel Rwanda a few years back and I can’t see past that horrendous civil war they had. I also struggle with the concept of giving people refugee status from the Country we want to send refugees.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
You do know how many they are planning to send over there, don't you? Less than 1% of the backlog?

I don't know what's worse. Your innate lack of compassion or your complete inability to think for yourself.
Click to expand...
Again, if you look at post 11 I've said that.

Your agenda driven attacks aren't even making any sense to what I said.

There's a real lack of actually reading the posts from the usual suspects here.

You seem determined to start an argument about a point I don't even feel strongly about, given you know I want to vote Reform, who have a different idea altogether.

But the point stands about the article, in that it makes no sense what the UN said, that because there's been a tragedy we should stand down a policy designed to deter.

Where's my lack of compassion? I don't want anyone to be dying in tragedies, that's why we need to deter crossings and as for people coming over here, they're coming from a safe country, not a war zone, so they shouldn't be making that trip.
 
Wizaard said:
Yet all those interviewed in Calais yesterday said the threat of Rwanda made no difference.

We took in more refugees from Rwanda last year than we sent Home Secretaries (which was quite a few)
Click to expand...
I doubt it'll make no difference, once the scheme gets going I'm sure it'll deter some, but not all or most.

But it's not going to draw people across is it, so again the point about the article stands.
 
JJpool said:
I doubt it'll make no difference, once the scheme gets going I'm sure it'll deter some, but not all or most.

But it's not going to draw people across is it, so again the point about the article stands.
Click to expand...
The chance of being sent to Rwanda is already miniscule.
And there will be multiple legal challenges that can be made against the deportation - for instance any gay people would have a good case as Rwanda has a poor record on gay rights. Civil rights lawyers are already on it.
There is no way that this policy can act as a deterrent.

To me, it's just a distraction - a back of a fag packet policy originally designed to distract and sate the gullible when Johnson was trying to 'save big dog'.
The amazing thing is that the seemingly rational Sunak is happy to stake so much of his reputation on something that is eventually bound to fail. Cynically, I would guess, he hopes that the sight of a few planes full of luckless refugees flying to Rwanda will persuade some of the hard of thinking not to vote for Reform and to vote Conservative instead at the GE.
 
JJpool said:
It's quite simple, people are willing to risk a crossing to get to treasure Island, because they know if they make it they'll stay.

If when Rwanda gets going people never make to our shores, then it'll be a deterrent.

Although I've openly said it's not the full solution as the numbers are just too small and probably too costly, where physically returning people would be far more effective.

If you look at the article I posted and the point I made, it's questioning the UN saying the policy should stop because of a tragedy, when it's likely to be more of a deterrent than a draw, so where's is the logic there?
Click to expand...
If this is Treasure Island, how come we have millions living in poverty?

Just look at the back streets of Blackpool.
 
Wizaard said:
If this is Treasure Island, how come we have millions living in poverty?

Just look at the back streets of Blackpool.
Click to expand...
Internationally, we don't look like that. We look like an ace place to live.

None of this is black and white.

We should be able to reserve the right to accept or refuse entry to the country - and we are incapable of producing a coherent system which does just that.

Frankly, after 20 odd years of unmanaged immigration, I'm not surprised we've come up with this idea.

Personally, I think if we are going to do this, we should have the Rwandan Navy, Army and Airforce implement it on Rwandan diplomatic land in the UK - but that won't happen as we are too chicken to say that's the only way to not make it the UK problem.
 
TSSeasider said:
And why I'm at it; 3 arrests because 5 people drown - so we obviously know who is doing it - so why wait????

Infuriates me so much.
Click to expand...
They may simply have arrested people deemed to have been piloting the boat, even if they were asylum seekers, as that is potentially an offence now. Best to wait on the full story, which we might not hear about.
 
Wizaard said:
The Final Solution. Fellow bedfellows.
Click to expand...

For those on here that think the "far right" is a myth, there it is in all its glory.

Half the Tory party will be pleased that Reform have been exposed, half will probably agree with him.

Ben Habib, take a bow son...
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
The chance of being sent to Rwanda is already miniscule.
And there will be multiple legal challenges that can be made against the deportation - for instance any gay people would have a good case as Rwanda has a poor record on gay rights. Civil rights lawyers are already on it.
There is no way that this policy can act as a deterrent.

To me, it's just a distraction - a back of a fag packet policy originally designed to distract and sate the gullible when Johnson was trying to 'save big dog'.
The amazing thing is that the seemingly rational Sunak is happy to stake so much of his reputation on something that is eventually bound to fail. Cynically, I would guess, he hopes that the sight of a few planes full of luckless refugees flying to Rwanda will persuade some of the hard of thinking not to vote for Reform and to vote Conservative instead at the GE.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but it's something.

I haven't really defended it before, only posted an article 1 on why what the UN said was nonesense.
 
Wizaard said:
If this is Treasure Island, how come we have millions living in poverty?

Just look at the back streets of Blackpool.
Click to expand...
Because that's what some in the EU call us apparently and to these people coming over by boat, from wherever they come from, I bet it is, as they get everything handed to them.

Also very poor to use that as an example when you've defended the town often and now suddenly you need to use it to make a point.

Head over to some of these shit holes and see what they're like.
 
I loved the footage on BBC news of the inflatable boat about to set sail and the police stood there. Apparently the French naval ship would intercept them and send it back.

Or one of the French rozzers could have slowly walked to the boat with water upto his ankles and just popped it with a knife… no casualties just a lot of wet and angry people demanding their cash back.
 
TSSeasider said:
Wishing someone dead on shark infested waters, is no different to the fella who would migrants drown.

Neither thoughts are particularly edifying.
Click to expand...
Ok i should have sent you a less "controversial "link, didnt think most would focus on his comments. The point is not what this unknown guy chose to comment but an interview from the deputy leader of the Reform party ( not just "a fella " ) chose to say, briefly paraphrased in this case, in a significant interview on a major radio channel .
So heres a link with the full interview.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1783133570128605695
 
JJpool said:
Because that's what some in the EU call us apparently and to these people coming over by boat, from wherever they come from, I bet it is, as they get everything handed to them.

Also very poor to use that as an example when you've defended the town often and now suddenly you need to use it to make a point.

Head over to some of these shit holes and see what they're like.
Click to expand...
Those in the EU who call us that are the non doms who own all the papers.

There's no getting away from the fact that Blackpool has many of the most deprived wards in the country. I'll always defend the town but that's the truth.
 
TSSeasider said:
Wishing someone dead on shark infested waters, is no different to the fella who would migrants drown.

Neither thoughts are particularly edifying.
Click to expand...
The official policy is to take them back, after watching the full interview, it was in response to her throwing loads of hypotheticals, saying if their boat goes down and they get given a new dinghy and keep jumping out or use a knife to cut the boat they're given etc.

Tbh anyone doing that it's basically a version of natural selection isn't it? As there's no guarantee they'd survive and that the border force would even be able to get to them in time. Anyone doing that to the boat is basically an attempted murderer and therefore definitely shouldn't be allowed in.

Just pick them up and take them back.

However it does raise an interesting thought experiment, to flip things a little with a few hypotheticals.

You can't always give in to people who use harming themselves as a way to get what they want.

If someone is trying to break into your house, he says he has a right to live there too. If you ket him in he stays forever. You refuse so he climbs onto the roof and threatens to jump off unless you let him in.

Do you let him in to save his life? Or do you lock the door and let him die to look after yourself?
 
Seems like it's been a colossal waste of money with zero results.

I struggle to see a positive.
 
Wizaard said:
Those in the EU who call us that are the non doms who own all the papers.

There's no getting away from the fact that Blackpool has many of the most deprived wards in the country. I'll always defend the town but that's the truth.
Click to expand...
When was that survey done, a while back, it'll be interesting to see if it changes when it's done again, it was about 5 years ago. The way they divided it up into small areas made it seem more, it's basically just the central area, given its one of the most densely populated areas doesn't help either, compares to some places with worse council estates maybe, but more spread out housing. There was also an element of crimes including which included on some level tourism crime numbers in the figures. Given no other areas have 20 million people in a relatively small area that doesn't help the figures and isn't a completey fair comparison.
 
Wizaard said:
Levelling up has made a huge difference...not
Click to expand...
Just edited and added more to the post btw...

Also as for leveling up tbf there's been a pandemic which massively slowed things down and a cost of living crisis.

The Tory leveling up has actually led to record investment into the town, but some projects are done many are ongoing or in the pipeline, you've got to give it a bit of time.

It's one area when the Labour councils vision is actually a good one on many levels. Even Labour admitted that the money from levelling up and the partnership with the government is working.
 
JJpool said:
Just edited and added more to the post btw...

Also as for leveling up tbf there's been a pandemic which massively slowed things down and a cost of living crisis.

The Tory leveling up has actually led to record investment into the town, but some projects are done many are ongoing or in the pipeline, you've got to give it a bit of time.

It's one area when the Labour councils vision is actually a good one on many levels. Even Labour admitted that the money from levelling up and the partnership with the government is working.
Click to expand...
Record investment was with funding from the EU, such as the whole of the Promenade renovation, but we decided to stop that source of funding. We've had nothing like the funding since.

I'm happy to give it time, but its piecemeal and subject to bidding against other areas, with Tory councils getting levelling up money in areas that don't seem to need it.

What is needed is massive regeneration but its a long way off.
 
Wizaard said:
Record investment was with funding from the EU, such as the whole of the Promenade renovation, but we decided to stop that source of funding. We've had nothing like the funding since.

I'm happy to give it time, but its piecemeal and subject to bidding against other areas, with Tory councils getting levelling up money in areas that don't seem to need it.

What is needed is massive regeneration but its a long way off.
Click to expand...
Some of it came from them, not much, which in some parts is our money given back to us. Relatively modest amounts compared to whats come in more recently.

There has been more than ever under this government. The most recent being 90 million for deprived inner housing areas.

There's been hundreds of millions.

Blackpool has benefited from leveling up more than anywhere I think I read the other day, that's because of it's predicament and that it's the perfect test case to prove leveling up, given its so well known.
 
Interesting article in the Telegraph: Rwanda Bill has caused migrants to pour into Ireland, says deputy PM

The threat of being deported to Rwanda is causing an influx of migrants from the UK into Ireland, the country’s deputy prime minister has complained.

Micheál Martin said that the policy was already “impacting on Ireland” as people were “fearful” of staying in the UK.

“Maybe that’s the impact it was designed to have,” the former Taoiseach said after Dublin revealed that 80 per cent of recent asylum seekers in Ireland had come into the country from Northern Ireland.


Personally, I think Mr Martin is wrong, AFAIK the Rwanda bill is not retrospective, so none of those already here can be sent there, I think it's a simple case of asylum and benefit shopping, with a significant number realizing that the UK isn't paved with gold, like they were told, and maybe Ireland is an even softer touch than we are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top