| The split in the far-right vote 04:10 - Feb 18 with 19785 views | The_Romford_Blue |
Great to see. Albeit Lowe on Twitter is disturbing.
Anyone on here willing to admit they would vote Restore? Makes Farage and his lot look moderate in comparison some of that nazi sh** coming from Lowe. |  |
| |  |
| The split in the far-right vote on 22:54 - Feb 21 with 1072 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| The split in the far-right vote on 18:46 - Feb 21 by JackNorthStand |
Remove anyone who enters the country illegally. If asylum is being claimed, this can be processed outside of the UK such is being proposed now and was put into effect, briefly by the Tories who had an agreement to stage the asylum facility in Rwanda. |
So you are basically lauding the failed, money-wasting and illegal Tory Rwandan policy.
Why do you think it is a good thing for the government to waste money breaking the law (but a bad thing for asylum seekers to break the law in order to seek asylum)? Surely the better thing would be to process claims, get those entitled to stay working and properly settled and remove those who are not entitled to stay once processing their claim has clarified where they do belong.
But my biggest gripe is that this section of people is being demonised as if they are the problem. They really aren't stealing our lives from us. It isn't them who has caused austerity etc. |  |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 00:38 - Feb 22 with 1014 views | reusersfreekicks |
| The split in the far-right vote on 10:21 - Feb 21 by lowhouseblue |
you really don't get it at all do you. it's very very sad. it's critical thinking 101 - our views are subjective, in politics and social science there is little absolute truth since instead we're choosing between multi-dimensional alternatives with complex and uncertain trade-offs. disagreement is not only legitimate, it is how we progress.
instead you seem to want certainty, a tribe to belong to and the chance to shout slogans. it's politics as pre-enlightenment religion - an absolutist assertion of your moral superiority. it is everything that is wrong with online politics - the intolerance, the closed-mindedness, the divisiveness, the tribalism, the policing of non-conformity. the puritans would have been proud.
the only way to have civil debate is to admit the possibility of civil debate.
to be clear - only in a religion does someone gets to declare views that differ from their own to be vile, dishonest and destructive. in the post enlightenment world we need evidence and debate to prove it. just decreeing some view to be illegitimate isn't enough. |
What a load of hogwash.
Plenty of big words and rationalisation to justify platforming far right ideals.
I get it loud and clear.
All views and ideologies are ok whatever the level of cruelty, persecution and suppression they contain.
Way to go |  | | |
| The split in the far-right vote on 08:45 - Feb 22 with 907 views | JackNorthStand |
| The split in the far-right vote on 22:54 - Feb 21 by Nthsuffolkblue |
So you are basically lauding the failed, money-wasting and illegal Tory Rwandan policy.
Why do you think it is a good thing for the government to waste money breaking the law (but a bad thing for asylum seekers to break the law in order to seek asylum)? Surely the better thing would be to process claims, get those entitled to stay working and properly settled and remove those who are not entitled to stay once processing their claim has clarified where they do belong.
But my biggest gripe is that this section of people is being demonised as if they are the problem. They really aren't stealing our lives from us. It isn't them who has caused austerity etc. |
Yes I am in support of the Rwanda policy and similar proposals that will have the same outcome. Remove those who enter illegally upon entry, process outside of the UK whilst their claim is reviewed.
It is not a waste of money and regarding legality, that will be for politicians who are in support of it and their lawyers to get to work on. |  | | |
| The split in the far-right vote on 08:51 - Feb 22 with 899 views | Herbivore |
| The split in the far-right vote on 08:45 - Feb 22 by JackNorthStand |
Yes I am in support of the Rwanda policy and similar proposals that will have the same outcome. Remove those who enter illegally upon entry, process outside of the UK whilst their claim is reviewed.
It is not a waste of money and regarding legality, that will be for politicians who are in support of it and their lawyers to get to work on. |
It's a massive waste of money. We chucked loads of cash at Rwanda and even if they'd taken the maximum number of asylum seekers agreed it would have been ridiculously expensive as a scheme. As it was, it was a total waste of taxpayers' money. If we want to process claims overseas then better to have a processing centre in France or Turkey and have a mechanism for processing claims before people have made a dangerous crossing rather than letting them do that and then deporting them. But most Reform voters don't want us to take asylum seekers at all so we won't go down that route. |  |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 10:57 - Feb 22 with 844 views | StokieBlue |
| The split in the far-right vote on 08:45 - Feb 22 by JackNorthStand |
Yes I am in support of the Rwanda policy and similar proposals that will have the same outcome. Remove those who enter illegally upon entry, process outside of the UK whilst their claim is reviewed.
It is not a waste of money and regarding legality, that will be for politicians who are in support of it and their lawyers to get to work on. |
"Yes I am in support of the Rwanda policy and similar proposals that will have the same outcome. Remove those who enter illegally upon entry, process outside of the UK whilst their claim is reviewed."
Why are you in favour of it given you don't want money wasted?
"According to a highly detailed March 2024 report by the National Audit Office (NAO), the direct marginal cost to send and support a single individual in Rwanda was estimated at just over £182,000.".
"Prior to the NAO's investigation, the Home Office published its own impact assessment in June 2023. At that time, they estimated the baseline unit cost of relocating an individual to a third country like Rwanda at £169,000."
"The estimates change drastically when the UK's massive upfront payments are factored into the equation. The UK agreed to pay hundreds of millions in fixed development and setup costs to Rwanda—including a £370 million baseline ETIF payment and a £120 million bonus once 300 people were relocated.
Because of these massive sunk costs, analyses of the NAO report concluded that if the UK only managed to send an initial cohort of 300 people, the total cost divided among them would equate to a staggering £1.8 million per person. The per-person cost would only drop closer to the £182,000 mark if tens of thousands of people were successfully deported, thereby diluting the initial fixed costs."
For balance, the average cost of a single persons benefit claims in the UK is ~9000-12000 per year. Asylum seekers don't actually claim benefits (they can get asylum support but it's far lower than benefits) but if they did it would take them 20 years of benefit claims to reach the cost of the deportation and processing in Rwanda. One would hope they would contribute to the country far before then.
"It is not a waste of money and regarding legality, that will be for politicians who are in support of it and their lawyers to get to work on."
That's at least the second time you've dismissed the illegality of something and just said "the lawyers can sort it out".
Any other illegal things you fancy ignoring?
SB |  | | |
| The split in the far-right vote on 11:54 - Feb 22 with 801 views | leitrimblue |
| The split in the far-right vote on 19:41 - Feb 21 by Swansea_Blue |
FFS. Typical lazy, lefty inaccurate stereotyping. You forgot the string of onions  |
Sorry, think I've let myself and the forum down by my misrepresentation of French culture. I'm off to watch a full season of allo allo for a recap |  | | |
| The split in the far-right vote on 13:17 - Feb 22 with 745 views | lowhouseblue |
| The split in the far-right vote on 00:38 - Feb 22 by reusersfreekicks |
What a load of hogwash.
Plenty of big words and rationalisation to justify platforming far right ideals.
I get it loud and clear.
All views and ideologies are ok whatever the level of cruelty, persecution and suppression they contain.
Way to go |
again, i'm saying that you need to challenge far right ideas with evidence and logic. prove them wrong. it's how debate works. relying on shouty labels and not engaging with what other people think gets you no where. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 13:58 - Feb 22 with 701 views | JackNorthStand |
| The split in the far-right vote on 10:57 - Feb 22 by StokieBlue |
"Yes I am in support of the Rwanda policy and similar proposals that will have the same outcome. Remove those who enter illegally upon entry, process outside of the UK whilst their claim is reviewed."
Why are you in favour of it given you don't want money wasted?
"According to a highly detailed March 2024 report by the National Audit Office (NAO), the direct marginal cost to send and support a single individual in Rwanda was estimated at just over £182,000.".
"Prior to the NAO's investigation, the Home Office published its own impact assessment in June 2023. At that time, they estimated the baseline unit cost of relocating an individual to a third country like Rwanda at £169,000."
"The estimates change drastically when the UK's massive upfront payments are factored into the equation. The UK agreed to pay hundreds of millions in fixed development and setup costs to Rwanda—including a £370 million baseline ETIF payment and a £120 million bonus once 300 people were relocated.
Because of these massive sunk costs, analyses of the NAO report concluded that if the UK only managed to send an initial cohort of 300 people, the total cost divided among them would equate to a staggering £1.8 million per person. The per-person cost would only drop closer to the £182,000 mark if tens of thousands of people were successfully deported, thereby diluting the initial fixed costs."
For balance, the average cost of a single persons benefit claims in the UK is ~9000-12000 per year. Asylum seekers don't actually claim benefits (they can get asylum support but it's far lower than benefits) but if they did it would take them 20 years of benefit claims to reach the cost of the deportation and processing in Rwanda. One would hope they would contribute to the country far before then.
"It is not a waste of money and regarding legality, that will be for politicians who are in support of it and their lawyers to get to work on."
That's at least the second time you've dismissed the illegality of something and just said "the lawyers can sort it out".
Any other illegal things you fancy ignoring?
SB |
“Why are you in favour of it given you don't want money wasted?”
I think you need to re read my reply.
Stopping human trafficking and protecting Britain is not a waste of money | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The split in the far-right vote on 14:09 - Feb 22 with 682 views | noggin |
| The split in the far-right vote on 13:58 - Feb 22 by JackNorthStand |
“Why are you in favour of it given you don't want money wasted?”
I think you need to re read my reply.
Stopping human trafficking and protecting Britain is not a waste of money |
Protecting Britain by paying huge amounts to send them somewhere else?
The way to cut knife crime in London is to send all teenage boys from the capital to Glasgow. |  |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 14:18 - Feb 22 with 660 views | J2BLUE |
| The split in the far-right vote on 14:09 - Feb 22 by noggin |
Protecting Britain by paying huge amounts to send them somewhere else?
The way to cut knife crime in London is to send all teenage boys from the capital to Glasgow. |
Noggin for London Mayor.
Genius. |  |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 14:20 - Feb 22 with 648 views | noggin |
| The split in the far-right vote on 14:18 - Feb 22 by J2BLUE |
Noggin for London Mayor.
Genius. |
I'm white so would have the reform vote, at least. | |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 14:26 - Feb 22 with 628 views | StokieBlue |
| The split in the far-right vote on 13:58 - Feb 22 by JackNorthStand |
“Why are you in favour of it given you don't want money wasted?”
I think you need to re read my reply.
Stopping human trafficking and protecting Britain is not a waste of money |
I read your reply fine, you said it wasn't a waste of money when all the evidence I've provided clearly shows it is.
How does it stop human trafficking? It just redirects human trafficking to Rwanda at great expense. Are you implying that the majority of asylum seekers and refugees are trafficked?
Alternatively we could look after them, even if it means paying benefits for a decade and it would still be cheaper than the Rwanda scheme. So it's clearly a total waste of money.
How is it "protecting Britain"? That's another new narrative you've started so you'll need to expand out what you mean since you seem to change narrative whenever a difficult question arises.
SB | | | |
| The split in the far-right vote on 14:46 - Feb 22 with 588 views | JackNorthStand |
| The split in the far-right vote on 14:26 - Feb 22 by StokieBlue |
I read your reply fine, you said it wasn't a waste of money when all the evidence I've provided clearly shows it is.
How does it stop human trafficking? It just redirects human trafficking to Rwanda at great expense. Are you implying that the majority of asylum seekers and refugees are trafficked?
Alternatively we could look after them, even if it means paying benefits for a decade and it would still be cheaper than the Rwanda scheme. So it's clearly a total waste of money.
How is it "protecting Britain"? That's another new narrative you've started so you'll need to expand out what you mean since you seem to change narrative whenever a difficult question arises.
SB |
“Why are you in favour of it given you don't want money wasted?”
I have said why I am in favour of it and clearly said, in my opinion it is not a waste of money. I did not say “ I don’t want money wasted.”
You are clutching at straws again.
By protecting Britain, I mean detaining and removing those who enter the UK illegally, whilst review of any asylum application and vetting takes place. There is a disproportionate amount of foreign nationals that enter the UK and are convicted of sexual offences, as well as the threat of Islamic extremism. | | | |
| The split in the far-right vote on 15:00 - Feb 22 with 560 views | StokieBlue |
| The split in the far-right vote on 14:46 - Feb 22 by JackNorthStand |
“Why are you in favour of it given you don't want money wasted?”
I have said why I am in favour of it and clearly said, in my opinion it is not a waste of money. I did not say “ I don’t want money wasted.”
You are clutching at straws again.
By protecting Britain, I mean detaining and removing those who enter the UK illegally, whilst review of any asylum application and vetting takes place. There is a disproportionate amount of foreign nationals that enter the UK and are convicted of sexual offences, as well as the threat of Islamic extremism. |
You're not really engaging with the points. I've provided evidence of how it's a waste of money, all you've done is say it's not without any evidence, even though I think most people would agree that spending nearly 200,000 GBP to send someone to Rwanda is a huge waste of money.
"By protecting Britain, I mean detaining and removing those who enter the UK illegally, whilst review of any asylum application and vetting takes place."
So, in 2022, 77% of asylum claims in the UK were granted. That number is now 45% but still pretty high, so 45% of the people you want sent to Rwanda at the cost of nearly 200,000 GBP per person will end up coming back to the UK to live with their application granted. Are you still honestly claiming that's not a waste of money?
"There is a disproportionate amount of foreign nationals that enter the UK and are convicted of sexual offences, as well as the threat of Islamic extremism."
The point on sexual offences is relevant but also much more complicated than you are making out. There was a debate on here a few weeks ago that outlined why that was the case. Overall the vast majority of people coming to the UK don't commit sexual offenses.
The point about Islamic extremism is rather scaremongering, the vast majority will not be trekking across continents in order to get to the UK to commit acts of extremism. Can you provide any evidence on the percentage of people arriving in the UK who have committed acts of extremism given you've highlighted it as a major concern?
SB [Post edited 22 Feb 15:00]
| | | |
| The split in the far-right vote on 16:29 - Feb 22 with 497 views | eireblue |
| The split in the far-right vote on 14:46 - Feb 22 by JackNorthStand |
“Why are you in favour of it given you don't want money wasted?”
I have said why I am in favour of it and clearly said, in my opinion it is not a waste of money. I did not say “ I don’t want money wasted.”
You are clutching at straws again.
By protecting Britain, I mean detaining and removing those who enter the UK illegally, whilst review of any asylum application and vetting takes place. There is a disproportionate amount of foreign nationals that enter the UK and are convicted of sexual offences, as well as the threat of Islamic extremism. |
Foreign National is not the same as an asylum seeker.
You are making a case about asylum seekers using the wrong data.
Logically if asylum seekers were less likely to be criminal, would you allow more in and send British born criminals to Rwanda, at a couple of hundred thousand more to do that. |  | | |
| The split in the far-right vote on 17:08 - Feb 22 with 448 views | JackNorthStand |
| The split in the far-right vote on 16:29 - Feb 22 by eireblue |
Foreign National is not the same as an asylum seeker.
You are making a case about asylum seekers using the wrong data.
Logically if asylum seekers were less likely to be criminal, would you allow more in and send British born criminals to Rwanda, at a couple of hundred thousand more to do that. |
Illegal immigrants arriving by boat are foreign nationals. They’re not from Leiston are they 🤣 | | | |
| The split in the far-right vote on 17:11 - Feb 22 with 437 views | JackNorthStand |
| The split in the far-right vote on 15:00 - Feb 22 by StokieBlue |
You're not really engaging with the points. I've provided evidence of how it's a waste of money, all you've done is say it's not without any evidence, even though I think most people would agree that spending nearly 200,000 GBP to send someone to Rwanda is a huge waste of money.
"By protecting Britain, I mean detaining and removing those who enter the UK illegally, whilst review of any asylum application and vetting takes place."
So, in 2022, 77% of asylum claims in the UK were granted. That number is now 45% but still pretty high, so 45% of the people you want sent to Rwanda at the cost of nearly 200,000 GBP per person will end up coming back to the UK to live with their application granted. Are you still honestly claiming that's not a waste of money?
"There is a disproportionate amount of foreign nationals that enter the UK and are convicted of sexual offences, as well as the threat of Islamic extremism."
The point on sexual offences is relevant but also much more complicated than you are making out. There was a debate on here a few weeks ago that outlined why that was the case. Overall the vast majority of people coming to the UK don't commit sexual offenses.
The point about Islamic extremism is rather scaremongering, the vast majority will not be trekking across continents in order to get to the UK to commit acts of extremism. Can you provide any evidence on the percentage of people arriving in the UK who have committed acts of extremism given you've highlighted it as a major concern?
SB [Post edited 22 Feb 15:00]
|
Thanks for the statistics. 65% of people arriving by small boat are not asylum seekers, scary. | | | |
| The split in the far-right vote on 17:14 - Feb 22 with 425 views | Benters |
| The split in the far-right vote on 17:08 - Feb 22 by JackNorthStand |
Illegal immigrants arriving by boat are foreign nationals. They’re not from Leiston are they 🤣 |
Funny that,they went to Leiston and got back on the rubber dinghies.  |  |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 17:19 - Feb 22 with 404 views | J2BLUE |
| The split in the far-right vote on 17:14 - Feb 22 by Benters |
Funny that,they went to Leiston and got back on the rubber dinghies. |
Just thought of an excellent solution to the hotels issue. I'm sure you will love it.
We need somewhere with a nice big village green... | |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 17:22 - Feb 22 with 388 views | Benters |
| The split in the far-right vote on 17:19 - Feb 22 by J2BLUE |
Just thought of an excellent solution to the hotels issue. I'm sure you will love it.
We need somewhere with a nice big village green... |
No doubt the day will come the green will get built on 🥲 | |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 17:36 - Feb 22 with 360 views | eireblue |
| The split in the far-right vote on 17:08 - Feb 22 by JackNorthStand |
Illegal immigrants arriving by boat are foreign nationals. They’re not from Leiston are they 🤣 |
Someone on holiday, or a student, or someone on a work visa, or some from the EU given leave to remain, will be classed as foreign nationals for crime statistics.
Your response has just demonstrated your ignorance of statistics. | | | |
| The split in the far-right vote on 17:39 - Feb 22 with 355 views | eireblue |
| The split in the far-right vote on 17:14 - Feb 22 by Benters |
Funny that,they went to Leiston and got back on the rubber dinghies. |
Another person demonstrating ignorance of simple maths and statistics. | | | |
| The split in the far-right vote on 17:55 - Feb 22 with 330 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| The split in the far-right vote on 17:11 - Feb 22 by JackNorthStand |
Thanks for the statistics. 65% of people arriving by small boat are not asylum seekers, scary. |
Can you explain why that is scary?
Can you also give me an idea of how much each deported immigrant under the Rwandan policy has cost and therefore why it is better value for money than processing asylum claims? | |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 17:59 - Feb 22 with 323 views | JackNorthStand |
| The split in the far-right vote on 17:36 - Feb 22 by eireblue |
Someone on holiday, or a student, or someone on a work visa, or some from the EU given leave to remain, will be classed as foreign nationals for crime statistics.
Your response has just demonstrated your ignorance of statistics. |
You implied that asylum seekers weren’t included as foreign nationals and have just had another car crash comment.
Those hat you mentioned as being in the UK on holiday, with work visas and students are all here with passports and have been given permission to enter, so due diligence has been taken to come to that decision.
People arriving illegally on boats have gone through no such checks at that point. | | | |
| The split in the far-right vote on 18:00 - Feb 22 with 317 views | JackNorthStand |
| The split in the far-right vote on 17:55 - Feb 22 by Nthsuffolkblue |
Can you explain why that is scary?
Can you also give me an idea of how much each deported immigrant under the Rwandan policy has cost and therefore why it is better value for money than processing asylum claims? |
Scary that 65% of those entering are not entitled to asylum and have tried to abuse the system.
The value of the Rwanda scheme is that eliminates risk that comes with allowing someone to stay in the UK, who has entered the UK by small boat, illegally, without first being vetted. [Post edited 22 Feb 18:05]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
