2 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

 

   First you wrote 200 a year  , then you wrote 200 a day

 

Thank you for pointing out my typo. To confirm - the Rwanda plan had the capacity to process 200 people a year, as I have wrote numerous times.

1 minute ago, Pickwick said:

 

Thank you for pointing out my typo. To confirm - the Rwanda plan had the capacity to process 200 people a year, as I have wrote numerous times.

 

   I have already posted a link showing that claim to be untrue , you are either lying or you didn't read the link .

   There was an unlimited amount of people who could be processed in Rwanda  

10 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   What is that "concrete evidence" that suggests that Rwanda isn't safe ?

 

I wish you would read what I write, instead of lazily trying to nitpick. I wrote exactly this: ' parliament would be granted the right to declare Rwanda a safe country -  even if there was concrete evidence to suggest otherwise'. 

 

The Supreme Court ruled that Rwanda was not safe. This bill was to try and circumvent the democratic processes of the UK. If this had been attempted by a Labour government Asean Now would be broken in an explosion of apoplectic rage.

2 minutes ago, Pickwick said:

 

I wish you would read what I write, instead of lazily trying to nitpick. I wrote exactly this: ' parliament would be granted the right to declare Rwanda a safe country -  even if there was concrete evidence to suggest otherwise'. 

 

The Supreme Court ruled that Rwanda was not safe. This bill was to try and circumvent the democratic processes of the UK. If this had been attempted by a Labour government Asean Now would be broken in an explosion of apoplectic rage.

 

3 minutes ago, Pickwick said:

 

I wish you would read what I write, instead of lazily trying to nitpick. I wrote exactly this: ' parliament would be granted the right to declare Rwanda a safe country -  even if there was concrete evidence to suggest otherwise'. 

 

The Supreme Court ruled that Rwanda was not safe. This bill was to try and circumvent the democratic processes of the UK. If this had been attempted by a Labour government Asean Now would be broken in an explosion of apoplectic rage.

 

   The Supreme Court then later declared Rwanda to be  safe Country .

You are Keir do like to give false out of date info 

4 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   I have already posted a link showing that claim to be untrue , you are either lying or you didn't read the link .

   There was an unlimited amount of people who could be processed in Rwanda  

 

This is completely false and you are either being obstinate or you have done no reading on the matter. Your link states that the capacity to process 100 people - which the Court of Appeal believed to be true - was outdated. Furthermore, there are scores of reports from both left and right wing press that the actual number is 200 per year (or 1000 over 5 years). On top of that the Deputy Prime Minister is quoted as saying the numbers would be in the hundreds, not thousands.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   The Supreme Court then later declared Rwanda to be  safe Country .

 

Can't find any reference to that ruling......do you have it to hand?

 

Cheers

2 minutes ago, Pickwick said:

 

This is completely false and you are either being obstinate or you have done no reading on the matter. Your link states that the capacity to process 100 people - which the Court of Appeal believed to be true - was outdated. Furthermore, there are scores of reports from both left and right wing press that the actual number is 200 per year (or 1000 over 5 years). On top of that the Deputy Prime Minister is quoted as saying the numbers would be in the hundreds, not thousands.

 

 

 

  You didn't read the link, did you .

From the link 

 

The 100 figure in the Court of Appeal judgment also appears to be an estimate of the Rwanda scheme’s initial capacity rather than the total number of asylum seekers it may take over time. The government says there’s no overall cap on the number of asylum seekers who may eventually be relocated to Rwanda, but hasn’t specified how many it expects to relocate each year.

 

2 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

Can't find any reference to that ruling......do you have it to hand?

 

Cheers

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-safety-of-rwanda-asylum-and-immigration-bill-factsheets/safety-of-rwanda-asylum-and-immigration-bill-factsheet-accessible

14 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   I have already posted a link showing that claim to be untrue , you are either lying or you didn't read the link .

   There was an unlimited amount of people who could be processed in Rwanda  

You should perhaps refrain from calling people liars when they make statements back by what the Home Office have said:

 

”The Home Office has said Rwanda has an initial capacity to take 200 people a year, but there are plans to increase that number when the scheme begins.”

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-67656220.amp

1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

 

   The Supreme Court then later declared Rwanda to be  safe Country .

You are Keir do like to give false out of date info 

 

That's patently not true.

 

I am not sure if you are choosing not to read what is written or if you do not understand what is written. I did try and highlight the pertinent part in bold.

 

You posted the bill, not me. A bill designed to side-step the Supreme Court's ruling that Rwanda was not a safe country.

3 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-safety-of-rwanda-asylum-and-immigration-bill-factsheets/safety-of-rwanda-asylum-and-immigration-bill-factsheet-accessible

The Government passed a bill that declares Rwanda a safe location to processes asylum seekers.

 

So a bill passed in the UK Parliament makes Rwanda safe?

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-safety-of-rwanda-asylum-and-immigration-bill-factsheets/safety-of-rwanda-asylum-and-immigration-bill-factsheet-accessible

 

Thanks for that....but it is not true to say the Supreme Court changed its ruling....is it?

3 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

You didn't read the link, did you .

 

I did read your link. But before I read your link I had also done extensive research on the Rwanda issue. You can focus on vague and unqualified statements that the capacity might be one day increased. I have looked at hundreds of sources - including a direct quote from the Deputy Prime Minister which I have referenced (and you ignore).

 

 

2 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

Thanks for that....but it is not true to say the Supreme Court changed its ruling....is it?

 

  Rwanda was deemed safe to send illegal immigrants to .

The Supreme Court initially declared that Rwanda wasn't safe , the UK and Rwanda addressed those issues and made Rwanda safe 

Anyway , its Labours problem now .

They can sort it out 

4 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Anyway , its Labours problem now .

They can sort it out 

Correct, its a problem created by the Tories that Labour now need to sort out.

 

And they are on it.

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Correct, its a problem created by the Tories that Labour now need to sort out.

 

And they are on it.

5 th 6 th 7 th July : no boats arriving and no asylum seekers arriving .

 

Labour announces they will get Asylum : 

 

8-9-10-11 th July : 8 boats arrive carrying 500 Asylum seekers .

 

 

8 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

  Rwanda was deemed safe to send illegal immigrants to .

The Supreme Court initially declared that Rwanda wasn't safe , the UK and Rwanda addressed those issues and made Rwanda safe 

 

I really don't understand your position. To begin with, the safety of Rwanda was not even the point being discussed (it was the cost and capacity), I have no idea why you have tried to pull the debate in that direction.

 

Secondly, you posted a link to the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill - to be honest I am not entirely sure why given the Rwanda plan has already been cancelled.

 

The bill allows parliament to declare Rwanda a safe country, even if there is concrete evidence to suggest otherwise. I have added bold again for clarity. I had never actually said Rwanda was unsafe (until you asked the subsequent question) because the point was not about Rwanda being safe or not, but about parliament being able to declare what it wants as true, even if the highest courts in the land say otherwise.

 

I can only imagine your reaction if Keir Starmer and the Labour majority tried to circumvent the law to suit their goals. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

5 th 6 th 7 th July : no boats arriving and no asylum seekers arriving .

 

Labour announces they will get Asylum : 

 

8-9-10-11 th July : 8 boats arrive carrying 500 Asylum seekers .

 

 

Did you check the weather?

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Did you check the weather?

 

   I didn't, how was the weather ?

1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   I didn't, how was the weather ?

It’s as it always has been, a significant problem for anyone wishing to cross the channel in a small boat.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68216757.amp

 

 

2 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

8 boats arrive carrying 500 Asylum seekers .

 

What is your point? I am trying to take you seriously but it's really difficult. Is your point that Labour have had a week to fix the problems of the last decade and haven't?

 

To ignore what has been written on this thread and suggest there is an easy solution is unreasonable. The UK is not the only country with this issue. Italy, France, Germany and Spain all process more asylum seekers than the UK. You will have noted earlier in the thread that on the surface Australia has a successful policy of limiting the number of arrivals by sea - but at huge cost (and still has a higher number of asylum seekers in backlog compared to the UK).

 

Why anyone would think this can be solved in a week is beyond me, unless of course there is an entrenched bias against the new government and/or they don't take the issue seriously.

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s as it always has been, a significant problem for anyone wishing to cross the channel in a small boat.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68216757.amp

 

  So how as the weather last week ?

You suggested that the weather was the reason why there were so many boat crossings just after labours asylum for all  announcement 

3 minutes ago, Pickwick said:

 

 

 

What is your point? I am trying to take you seriously but it's really difficult. Is your point that Labour have had a week to fix the problems of the last decade and haven't?

 

 

   My point is that giving all asylum seekers asylum will just encourage more to seek asylum and make the crossing .

   Could get sent to Rwanda , no one crosses

Guaranteed asylum, 550 come across 

18 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

  So how as the weather last week ?

You suggested that the weather was the reason why there were so many boat crossings just after labours asylum for all  announcement 

I asked did you check the weather.

 

The weather is a factor in small boats crossing/not crossing, always has been.

 

Of course it could be that in a matter of a couple of days people heard the news of Labour cancelling the failure Rwanda asylum seeker exchange scam and dashed across the globe to jump into small boats.

 

If you don’t want to accept that weather is the more far more likely cause, go with the ridiculous.

19 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   My point is that giving all asylum seekers asylum will just encourage more to seek asylum and make the crossing .

   Could get sent to Rwanda , no one crosses

Guaranteed asylum, 550 come across 

There is no ‘Guaranteed asylum’.

 

You are making stuff up.

 

And the Rwanda plan did not stop people crossing the channel.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There is no ‘Guaranteed asylum’.

 

You are making stuff up.

 

And the Rwanda plan did not stop people crossing the channel.

 

 

 

   What I did mean was that Starmer announcing they could apply for Asylum in the UK and not get sent to Rwanda , guaranteeing they could stay in the UK and apply for asylum .

  They hadn't began forcing failed asylum seekers to Rwanda , the prospect of being sent to Rwanda could well have been the reason why they stopped crossing..........................or was it the weather 🙂

   

3 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   What I did mean was that Starmer announcing they could apply for Asylum in the UK and not get sent to Rwanda , guaranteeing they could stay in the UK and apply for asylum .

  They hadn't began forcing failed asylum seekers to Rwanda , the prospect of being sent to Rwanda could well have been the reason why they stopped crossing..........................or was it the weather 🙂

   

Right so they stopped crossing just as the Tories were getting kicked out of Government.

 

The failed Rwanda asylum seeker exchange scam had been in place for months, the failed Tory Government already been detaining asylum seekers in pretense that they were going to be deported, none of that stopped the boats.

There were already over 100,000 asylum seekers in the UK being kept at tax payer expense because the Tories had failed to clear their applications.

 

———-

 

Those people are now having their applications processed. 

 

Labour addressing a Tory failure.
 

That’s what this news item is about.

 

 

 

Just now, Nick Carter icp said:

My point is that giving all asylum seekers asylum

 

No country - including the UK - gives all asylum seekers asylum, despite what the tabloids write.

 

It is very difficult to get reliable figures for the percentage of asylum seekers who have successful applications. There are many different steps, appeals processes etc. and publications (on all points of the spectrum) use different statistics depending on how they want to frame the narrative. The last Conservative government also appeared to massage the figures to try and pretend the number was lower ( a four-fold increase in withdrawn applications by the Home Office, only for them to mysteriously reappear later after the figures had been released to the press).

 

For example, according to the House of Commons Library, 33% were refused asylum last year. But these were 'initial applications' only; some went on to be unsuccessful further down the line; conversely one third of appeals against the initial decision were subsequently successful. There is no reliable data to indicate if they then went on to be ultimately successful or not.

 

What is stark is that France - when compared to other EU nations and the UK - has a much lower rate of successful applications and only grants asylum to about 33%. I have no idea why and on what criteria, and I also do not know if this is just a headline figure and fails to include the actual number (successful appeals etc.). I also do not know how many of the 66% are still actually in France.

 

Please note that France and the Conservatives are not the Labour Party.

 

2 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

What I did mean was that Starmer announcing they could apply for Asylum in the UK and not get sent to Rwanda , guaranteeing they could stay in the UK and apply for asylum .

 

It is established that - at least in the beginning - Rwanda would only have the capacity to process 200 asylum seekers a year (according to the Deputy Prime Minister at the time, Dominic Raab, and myriad other sources). You have already told us 500 have crossed the channel this week. I am not an expert in mathematics but even I can see the flaw in the system.

 

You choose to ignore the former Deputy Prime Minister, and the myriad sources (from all political sides), and you ignore the problems Australia had implementing their system in the real world, despite having much more processing capacity than Rwanda.

 

You also choose to ignore that the Home Office itself reported that the costs to send people to Rwanda would dwarf the cost of hotels etc. that we currently pay - and it is the cost of these hotels, mobile phones, healthcare etc. that people keep complaining about the most.

 

It's a strange and unconvincing strategy betraying your own personal bias.

 

14 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m looking forward to it.

 

There are reports that the King’s speech shall include 30 bills to be passed in the coming parliamentary session.

 

 

What you are looking forward to is, the UK's downfall, more of your friends given entry to the UK, and the populace paying more taxes to cater for what you crave....