The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[chrisp65]

4 minutes ago, MessiWillSignForVilla said:

I hope this means the word removed resigns!

 

I’m not sure that being found guilty, being a proven liar, or just generally being incompetent are good enough reasons to resign anymore.

 

[MessiWillSignForVilla]

5 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

 

I’m not sure that being found guilty, being a proven liar, or just generally being incompetent are good enough reasons to resign anymore.

 

At least let me hope, the prick's been here for 12 years and had no sign of being beaten.

[bickster]

 

[bickster]

Amusing thread on Tory Christ babble at Easter

 

[HanoiVillan]

On 14/04/2022 at 13:48, LondonLax said:

It’s about creating a disincentive to future migrants crossing the channel.

It’s modelled on Australia’s policy of no processing people on Australian territory who arrived by boat. 

It does seem to have worked as a deterrent to people making that type of journey to Australia where boats would regularly sink and people would die. There is now no point even taking that type of risk to get to Australia. 

It is indeed 'modelled on' the Australian policy, but we need to be clear that they are not the same.

The Australian policy is to detain asylum seekers overseas while their Australian asylum application is processed. There are two outcomes - either they are accepted, in which case they are taken to the Australian mainland, or they are rejected, in which case they are deported back to their country of origin ('hopefully', although in reality lots of people seem to be stuck in limbo).

This new UK policy does something else. The UK makes a snap decision about the asylum seeker's claim, and then if they are single, male and have their application rejected, they are sent to Rwanda, who are paid by the British government to give them asylum. The policy is a financial trade between governments in unwilling people who do not wish to be located in Rwanda, and it is proposed to happen to people who have already been rejected by the UK government.

[LondonLax]

20 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

It is indeed 'modelled on' the Australian policy, but we need to be clear that they are not the same.

The Australian policy is to detain asylum seekers overseas while their Australian asylum application is processed. There are two outcomes - either they are accepted, in which case they are taken to the Australian mainland, or they are rejected, in which case they are deported back to their country of origin ('hopefully', although in reality lots of people seem to be stuck in limbo).

This new UK policy does something else. The UK makes a snap decision about the asylum seeker's claim, and then if they are single, male and have their application rejected, they are sent to Rwanda, who are paid by the British government to give them asylum. The policy is a financial trade between governments in unwilling people who do not wish to be located in Rwanda, and it is proposed to happen to people who have already been rejected by the UK government.

No, Australia had a policy whereby anyone arriving in Australia by boat would not be allowed to ever be granted asylum in Australia, no questions asked.

People who were not willing to be returned to their country of origin (often for fear of death) were allowed to settle in Papua New Guinea (with Australia paying the PNG government for their troubles) but many did not want to as there is nothing for them there. Hence a legacy group languished for years.

New Zealand offered to take some of these people but that was rejected as New Zealanders are allowed visa free travel to Australia and thus it could be seen as a ‘back door’ into the country. A number were sent to the USA which Obama signed up to but it fell to Trump to follow through with the transfer and Trump famously moaned about it at the time. 

[HanoiVillan]

15 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

No, Australia had a policy whereby anyone arriving in Australia by boat would not be allowed to ever be granted asylum in Australia, no questions asked.

People who were not willing to be returned to their country of origin (often for fear of death) were allowed to settle in Papua New Guinea (with Australia paying the PNG government for their troubles) but many did not want to as there is nothing for them there. Hence a legacy group languished for years.

New Zealand offered to take some of these people but that was rejected as New Zealanders are allowed visa free travel to Australia and thus it could be seen as a ‘back door’ into the country. A number were sent to the USA which Obama signed up to but it fell to Trump to follow through with the transfer and Trump famously moaned about it at the time. 

Thanks for the correction. Looking, I see you are absolutely right about the policy being to never admit anyone held offshore. However, that's still different to the UK deal, which is a transportation deal with a net negative cash value (UK makes a £120m grant, then pays for each transferred person), not 'offshore processing' (offshore detention) as per Australia's policy. 

[LondonLax]

18 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Thanks for the correction. Looking, I see you are absolutely right about the policy being to never admit anyone held offshore. However, that's still different to the UK deal, which is a transportation deal with a net negative cash value (UK makes a £120m grant, then pays for each transferred person), not 'offshore processing' (offshore detention) as per Australia's policy. 

It feels like splitting hairs a bit. The refugees we are talking about in Australia’s case had attempted to travel to Australia (typically from Indonesia). Whether they were intercepted at sea on route or whether they landed on Australian soil made no difference, they were transferred to Papua New Guinea where they were either granted leave to stay in PNG (at a cost to Australia) or sent to their countries of origin. 

Edited April 17, 2022 by LondonLax

[ml1dch]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

The policy is a financial trade between governments in unwilling people who do not wish to be located in Rwanda, and it is proposed to happen to people who have already been rejected by the UK government.

And fortunately there is already a perfectly decent term for the transfer of people between territories against their will for money.

People trafficking.

[OutByEaster?]

I see Boris is nipping over to India for a few days to avoid PMQ's.

Fridge must be busy.

 

[ml1dch]

 

[Genie]

1 hour ago, ml1dch said:

 

Words that are generally quite important to avoid in that job. 
It’s an exact role reversal of what is required.

[chrisp65]

Quite a lot of people with short memories.

We are talking about the man who got Brexit done, nearly died fighting for this country AND invented and personally funded a world saving vaccine.

Now, in the middle of a war, is not the time to turn against Saint De Pfeffel the patron saint of favours.

 

[Genie]

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Quite a lot of people with short memories.

We are talking about the man who got Brexit done, nearly died fighting for this country AND invented and personally funded a world saving vaccine.

Now, in the middle of a war, is not the time to turn against Saint De Pfeffel the patron saint of favours.

 

[fightoffyour]

1 hour ago, ml1dch said:

 

This sounds like Bruce describing himself as a fat waste of space tactically inept cabbage head.

Incompetent corrupt dishonest idiot buffoon.

[Genie]

Only £120m of tax payers money wasted on the Rwandan asylum plan pushed through personally by Priti Patel after her team tried to block it. Phew.

[Rds1983]

[Genie]

Are the BBC deliberately picking photos of Patel looking like a smug word removed, or is it just that she generally looks that way most of the time?

 

[bannedfromHandV]

8 minutes ago, Genie said:

Are the BBC deliberately picking photos of Patel looking like a smug word removed, or is it just that she generally looks that way most of the time?

 

The latter.

[chrisp65]