LondonLax Posted April 14, 2022 Share Posted April 14, 2022 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Genie said: Everyone else said no. Wouldnt it be cheaper and better to offer these single males training in areas we have shortages like HGV driving and trades etc? Surely that’s the everybody wins scenario? The policy is intended to act as a deterrent. If it is widely known that anyone who crosses the channel gets training and a job as a HGV driver in incentivises more people to take a risk in getting to the U.K. that way to get that deal. It is entirely possible to run a humanitarian immigration program in parallel to a deterrent program. You could set a number of people you are willing to take and train as HGV drivers etc each year and at the same time anyone who attempts to bypass the humanitarian program and cross the channel on their own would end up in the deterrent scheme. The argument would then be around how generous the humanitarian program should be in terms of numbers and benefits and how punitive the concurrent ‘deterrent’ program is. Edited April 14, 2022 by LondonLax 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomav84 Posted April 14, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted April 14, 2022 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted April 14, 2022 Share Posted April 14, 2022 38% support, I actually thought it would be higher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted April 14, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted April 14, 2022 Of those that oppose, I wonder how many would support capsizing boats or lining up any arrivals against a wall in Dover and ending them instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted April 14, 2022 Share Posted April 14, 2022 (edited) 13 minutes ago, tomav84 said: Do you reckon I could apply for this, take the £1m and then apply to live somewhere in the EU, US, Canada or Australia? Maybe I could initially fly to France then return via a small boat. It might cost a little up front but worthwhile in the long run. Edited April 14, 2022 by Genie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desensitized43 Posted April 14, 2022 Share Posted April 14, 2022 4 minutes ago, Genie said: 38% support, I actually thought it would be higher Really not sure on the question. How does flying people to Rwanda “prevent illegal channel crossings”? Surely it’ll just make people less likely to declare themselves to UK authorities when they get here, asylum claim or not? They’ll still come because the legal routes to them have been closed. The illegal ones remain open it’s only now that the consequences of being caught or declaring themselves are a spell on Rwandan dachau. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted April 14, 2022 Share Posted April 14, 2022 1 minute ago, desensitized43 said: Really not sure on the question. How does flying people to Rwanda “prevent illegal channel crossings”? Surely it’ll just make people less likely to declare themselves to UK authorities when they get here, asylum claim or not? They’ll still come because the legal routes to them have been closed. The illegal ones remain open it’s only now that the consequences of being caught or declaring themselves are a spell on Rwandan dachau. If it does get up and running, I expect plenty will find their way back to a small boat on the channel for a second crack at it, but with a family in tow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted April 14, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted April 14, 2022 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted April 14, 2022 Share Posted April 14, 2022 Just now, Chindie said: At least we aren’t sending money to the EU anymore. Thank goodness that’s over with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choffer Posted April 14, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted April 14, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, LondonLax said: The policy is intended to act as a deterrent. Yep. It's to deter us from talking about parties and fines. Seems it's a very effective deterrent. Edited April 14, 2022 by choffer 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choffer Posted April 14, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted April 14, 2022 He’s just trolling now, isn’t he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straggler Posted April 14, 2022 Share Posted April 14, 2022 42 minutes ago, choffer said: He’s just trolling now, isn’t he? What an irredeemable word removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straggler Posted April 14, 2022 Share Posted April 14, 2022 1 minute ago, Straggler said: What an irredeemable word removed. This post resulted in my rank on this website going up to rising star. I can only assume you get extra points for calling Boris a word removed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Ingram85 Posted April 14, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted April 14, 2022 (edited) Boris is a word removed. Boris is a word removed Boris is a word removed. Boris is a word removed Boris is a word removed. Boris is a word removed Boris is a word removed. Boris is a word removed Boris is a word removed. Boris is a word removed. Edited April 14, 2022 by Ingram85 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted April 14, 2022 Share Posted April 14, 2022 I'm not sure what the answer is, don' think it's this. But when our local 5 star hotel, (amongst many others) where my pal got married is now closed, full of asylum seekers, there is something seriously wrong. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jones1328 Posted April 14, 2022 Share Posted April 14, 2022 Just now, foreveryoung said: I'm not sure what the answer is, don' think it's this. But when our local 5 star hotel, (amongst many others) where my pal got married is now closed, full of asylum seekers, there is something seriously wrong. Yeah, it's called a lack of housing stock being built. Not too any asylum seekers looking to better their lives. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted April 14, 2022 Share Posted April 14, 2022 7 minutes ago, jones1328 said: Yeah, it's called a lack of housing stock being built. Not too any asylum seekers looking to better their lives. I realise there's a housing shortage, but I'm unsure we should be upping the rate of builds to house asylum seekers. Like I said it needed much better control, but that's not our job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted April 14, 2022 Share Posted April 14, 2022 21 minutes ago, foreveryoung said: I'm not sure what the answer is, don' think it's this. But when our local 5 star hotel, (amongst many others) where my pal got married is now closed, full of asylum seekers, there is something seriously wrong. Do you not think those asylum seekers would much prefer to be in their own home? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted April 14, 2022 Share Posted April 14, 2022 3 minutes ago, DCJonah said: Do you not think those asylum seekers would much prefer to be in their own home? Yeah defo, but so would 99% of the homeless. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted April 14, 2022 Share Posted April 14, 2022 4 minutes ago, foreveryoung said: homeless. Bit of a problem there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts