|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 18, 2023 10:44:41 GMT
The British government insists it has ‘robust plans’ to keep its Rwanda asylum policy afloat amid reports commercial airlines have shunned contracts for the scheme. According to The Sunday Times, not a single firm has yet signed up to fly migrants to the East African country, for fear that being associated with the Tories’ highly controversial proposals would damage their reputations - linkGiven the anger of people in this country regarding the continued flood of illegals from the EU, I would have thought that reputations would be damaged more by airlines refusing to take them. Actually, given the airlines attitude shouldn't the government consider using the RAF. A couple of hundred illegals on a C17, a couple of fights a week, it wouldn't take long before the message got back to illegals in the EU that a cross channel dingy is a one way ticket to Rwanda.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Dec 18, 2023 10:53:06 GMT
They don't need to travel first class. I understand the world record payload for a C-17, currently held by the USAF, is around 650. Opportunity to go for gold here.
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Dec 18, 2023 10:59:39 GMT
The British government insists it has ‘robust plans’ to keep its Rwanda asylum policy afloat amid reports commercial airlines have shunned contracts for the scheme. According to The Sunday Times, not a single firm has yet signed up to fly migrants to the East African country, for fear that being associated with the Tories’ highly controversial proposals would damage their reputations - linkGiven the anger of people in this country regarding the continued flood of illegals from the EU, I would have thought that reputations would be damaged more by airlines refusing to take them. Actually, given the airlines attitude shouldn't the government consider using the RAF. A couple of hundred illegals on a C17, a couple of fights a week, it wouldn't take long before the message got back to illegals in the EU that a cross channel dingy is a one way ticket to Rwanda. Rwanda has only agreed to 200 asylum seekers a year. £500,000,000 well spent.
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 18, 2023 11:30:19 GMT
The British government insists it has ‘robust plans’ to keep its Rwanda asylum policy afloat amid reports commercial airlines have shunned contracts for the scheme. According to The Sunday Times, not a single firm has yet signed up to fly migrants to the East African country, for fear that being associated with the Tories’ highly controversial proposals would damage their reputations - linkGiven the anger of people in this country regarding the continued flood of illegals from the EU, I would have thought that reputations would be damaged more by airlines refusing to take them. Actually, given the airlines attitude shouldn't the government consider using the RAF. A couple of hundred illegals on a C17, a couple of fights a week, it wouldn't take long before the message got back to illegals in the EU that a cross channel dingy is a one way ticket to Rwanda. Rwanda has only agreed to 200 asylum seekers a year. £500,000,000 well spent. Can you show me whatever it is you're reading?
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Dec 18, 2023 12:06:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 18, 2023 12:14:06 GMT
Mmmm, all very interesting. However, can you point out the bit where it says Rwanda will only take 200 asylum seekers a year...
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Dec 18, 2023 13:25:47 GMT
Mmmm, all very interesting. However, can you point out the bit where it says Rwanda will only take 200 asylum seekers a year... That was something I heard on a TV interview. Perhaps I misheard ''200 this year''. Either way Rwanda is never going to be a solution to thousands of asylum seekers arriving by boat. It's just electioneering. The Tories are desperate to make the next election about immigration rather than focus on 13 years of failures. Labour, of course, will make it about the NHS and the economy. The battle lines have been drawn.
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 18, 2023 13:38:03 GMT
Mmmm, all very interesting. However, can you point out the bit where it says Rwanda will only take 200 asylum seekers a year... That was something I heard on a TV interview. Perhaps I misheard ''200 this year''. Either way Rwanda is never going to be a solution to thousands of asylum seekers arriving by boat. It's just electioneering. The Tories are desperate to make the next election about immigration rather than focus on 13 years of failures. Labour, of course, will make it about the NHS and the economy. The battle lines have been drawn. The Rwanda plan may or may not come to fruition, time will tell. One thing is for sure, if it fails it will be because of tax payer funded left wing lawyers, not the government. As for numbers, Cleverly has stated there is no upper limit on numbers sent to Rwanda and just this morning Sir Michael Fabricant (Tory MP) said the government could easilly use the RAF's transport command to fly them to Rwanda.
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Dec 18, 2023 13:49:26 GMT
That was something I heard on a TV interview. Perhaps I misheard ''200 this year''. Either way Rwanda is never going to be a solution to thousands of asylum seekers arriving by boat. It's just electioneering. The Tories are desperate to make the next election about immigration rather than focus on 13 years of failures. Labour, of course, will make it about the NHS and the economy. The battle lines have been drawn. The Rwanda plan may or may not come to fruition, time will tell. One thing is for sure, if it fails it will be because of tax payer funded left wing lawyers, not the government. As for numbers, Cleverly has stated there is no upper limit on numbers sent to Rwanda and just this morning Sir Michael Fabricant (Tory MP) said the government could easilly use the RAF's transport command to fly them to Rwanda. It would be cheaper to house them here, according to the government's own figures.
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 18, 2023 13:59:25 GMT
The Rwanda plan may or may not come to fruition, time will tell. One thing is for sure, if it fails it will be because of tax payer funded left wing lawyers, not the government. As for numbers, Cleverly has stated there is no upper limit on numbers sent to Rwanda and just this morning Sir Michael Fabricant (Tory MP) said the government could easilly use the RAF's transport command to fly them to Rwanda. It would be cheaper to house them here, according to the government's own figures. I fail to see how it could possibly be cheaper to accommodate 50,000 illegals in hotels in this country, plus all the add on expenses, than it would be to ship them out to Rwanda, unless perhaps your looking at home office figs?..
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Dec 18, 2023 14:03:22 GMT
Red, you seem to painfully ignorant of the realities of the policy you are advocating. Perhaps I could suggest you read up a little first.
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Dec 18, 2023 14:06:07 GMT
It would be cheaper to house them here, according to the government's own figures. I fail to see how it could possibly be cheaper to accommodate 50,000 illegals in hotels in this country, plus all the add on expenses, than it would be to ship them out to Rwanda, unless perhaps your looking at home office figs?.. It's there in the link I provided earlier. 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. The department has also estimated the cost of sending someone to a safe country - not specifically Rwanda - is £169,000, compared to £106,000 if they remain in the UK.
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Dec 18, 2023 14:11:18 GMT
So far it has cost the UK £240 million with another £50 million allocated for 2024. In total all we have sent to date is three Home Secretaries and unfortunately they all came back.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Dec 18, 2023 14:34:57 GMT
Stop Press: Cost of Rwanda transport plunges.
USAF has announced the C17 payload record is not 640, but 823!
That's a 28% reduction per bumspace.
Time to re-crunch the numbers.
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 18, 2023 14:37:01 GMT
I fail to see how it could possibly be cheaper to accommodate 50,000 illegals in hotels in this country, plus all the add on expenses, than it would be to ship them out to Rwanda, unless perhaps your looking at home office figs?.. It's there in the link I provided earlier. 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. The department has also estimated the cost of sending someone to a safe country - not specifically Rwanda - is £169,000, compared to £106,000 if they remain in the UK. Monte, if the Home Office told me what month it was, I'd check a calendar before believing them.
|
|