The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[Sir Ralph]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

Ffs...

It’s like a scene from a farce:
Home Office sources have confirmed that one person sent to France under the UK-France treaty – which allows people who cross the Channel to Britain in small boats to be sent back in exchange for bringing the same number in France to the UK via a legal route – is now back in the UK. He returned by a small boat.

Smash the gangs!

[Farmer Saint]

43 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Ffs...

It’s like a scene from a farce:
Home Office sources have confirmed that one person sent to France under the UK-France treaty – which allows people who cross the Channel to Britain in small boats to be sent back in exchange for bringing the same number in France to the UK via a legal route – is now back in the UK. He returned by a small boat.

It's a farce. The whole fucking thing is a farce, and there is no way to stop it. Successive governments have tried and failed. The issue is global inequality, and it will continue until that is solved.

[tdmickey3]

51 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Smash the gangs!

Rwanda !!

[Sir Ralph]

3 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Rwanda !!

Was a good idea

[Farmer Saint]

12 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Was a good idea

Interesting piece about it here:

https://www.brunel.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/articles/Is-the-Rwanda-plan-acting-as-a-deterrent-Here's-what-the-evidence-says-about-this-approach

[hypochondriac]

31 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

It's a farce. The whole fucking thing is a farce, and there is no way to stop it. Successive governments have tried and failed. The issue is global inequality, and it will continue until that is solved.

We could easily stop it or at least massively reduce it but many in power are uncomfortable to do it because it feels unfair.

[Farmer Saint]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

We could easily stop it or at least massively reduce it but many in power are uncomfortable to do it because it feels unfair.

How?

[hypochondriac]

14 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

How?

For a start change the law. Leave the ECHR, announce that anyone coming over on small boats is breaking the law and is a criminal and no one would be allowed to stay. Patrol the waters, you could look into creating a processing facility on a smaller island but that might not be feasible. You should definitely look into creating secure bases that can house people where you wouldn't be free to roam about the local community. Look to get those detained removed from the country as quickly as possible. Threaten some nations with sanctions if they refuse to take back their people. At the same time you could offer to cooperate with the French in order to properly police things on their end.

After a short period of that it would remove most invcentives for trying to cross on a small boat and the numbers attempting to do so would drop like a stone. 

Not saying I necessarily agree with that by the way but it would be more effective than what we have now 

Edited 2 hours ago by hypochondriac

[tdmickey3]

44 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Was a good idea

🤣🤣🤣🤣

[Sir Ralph]

27 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Interesting piece about it here:

https://www.brunel.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/articles/Is-the-Rwanda-plan-acting-as-a-deterrent-Here's-what-the-evidence-says-about-this-approach

There could be some difficulties with it but you have to have some degree of deterrent. At the moment there is nothing, so I’m saying that Rwanda seems to be a better idea than this exchange with France, which has so far done nothing. Why can’t we just put people in large holding centres for them to be processed? If I knew I could get accommodation in central London and walk around the streets of the capital, for starters that would be more attractive than being in a holding centre

[tdmickey3]

25 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

We could easily stop it or at least massively reduce it but many in power are uncomfortable to do it because it feels unfair.

How?

[Sir Ralph]

12 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

How?

Put people in holding centres, not hotels; no healthcare access (including dentists) (only in life or death situations), no school access (any education in holding centre if legally required to provide). You get food and no allowance. Basically you arrive, in a holding camp till your case is determined. You need to remove incentive. The problem is that if you are someone from a developed country and you can come here and chance your arm to get a lot of benefits and get closer to their standard of living, why wouldn’t you. 
 

 Ideally you would not do this to genuine asylum seekers BUT there are too many fiddling the system. If I was in genuine fear for my families life I would 100% accept this to seek to claim asylum. If you wouldn’t I would question the level of risk to you

Edited 1 hour ago by Sir Ralph

[hypochondriac]

I actually think it's right that as a responsible country we take a reasonable share of people who are genuinely fleeing for their lives as long as they are willing to contribute to the country and share our values. I just don't believe that anyone entering the country illegally should be allowed to stay because it simply incentives everyone to try it. 

[hypochondriac]

15 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

How?

See above.

[tdmickey3]

4 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Put people in holding centres, not hotels; no healthcare access (including dentists) (only in life or death situations), no school access (any education in holding centre if legally required to provide). You get food and no allowance. Basically you arrive, in a holding camp till your case is determined. You need to remove incentive. The problem is that if you are someone from a developed country and you can come here and chance your arm to get a lot of benefits and get closer to their standard of living, why wouldn’t you. 
 

 Ideally you would not do this to genuine asylum seekers BUT there are too many fiddling the system. If I was in genuine fear for my families life I would 100% accept this to seek to claim asylum. If you wouldn’t I would question the level of risk to you

Where are the detention centres you speak of? We used the Bibby Stockholm and it was a mess.

You just want to treat humans like shit and it speaks volumes for what kind of nasty person you are, guess you like Farage?

And in response to the bit in bold, you are liar as you would not

[tdmickey3]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I actually think it's right that as a responsible country we take a reasonable share of people who are genuinely fleeing for their lives as long as they are willing to contribute to the country and share our values. I just don't believe that anyone entering the country illegally should be allowed to stay because it simply incentives everyone to try it. 

That does not explain how does it ?

[Sir Ralph]

10 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Where are the detention centres you speak of? We used the Bibby Stockholm and it was a mess.

You just want to treat humans like shit and it speaks volumes for what kind of nasty person you are, guess you like Farage?

And in response to the bit in bold, you are liar as you would not

As expected (didn’t take long) “you’re a nasty man cause you don’t agree with me”. Pathetic. And yes I would accept these circumstances if I was in fear of my life? Anyone with half a brain would as it would be better than dying or being persecuted (which explains why you wouldn’t take this option)

It’s not treating people like shit, they are being treated humanely without all of the extra benefits that you get of being a full citizen of this country.  What part of the above is inhumane? Removing incentives doesn’t mean you are being inhumane

Edited 1 hour ago by Sir Ralph

[tdmickey3]

5 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

As expected (didn’t take long) “you’re a nasty man cause you don’t agree with me”. Yes and you live in fairy land . And yes I would accept these circumstances if I was in fear of my life? Anyone with half a brain would as it would be better than dying or being persecuted. 

It’s not treating people like shit, they are being treated humanely without all of the extra benefits that you get of being a full citizen of this country.  What part of the above is inhumane?

No healthcare unless they are dying.... that`s why!

That sort of comment puts you in the half a brain category...

You do realise that life saving emergency care is much more expensive than preventative care or are you stupid..... don't bother answering that because we already know the answer

Edited 1 hour ago by tdmickey3

[Sir Ralph]

19 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

No healthcare unless they are dying.... that`s why!

That sort of comment puts you in the half a brain category...

1. So if I have health problems that I want to fix for free I can come to the UK to get it done?

2. Why should somebody who doesn’t have full citizenship right and hasn’t contributed to our society yet get the same benefit as somebody who has?

I take it that would be prefer to continue persecution or die rather than live in the circumstances I suggested due to a lack of a response on that?

Let me remind you that you asked how things could change to remove the incentive. I said this is how you could do it and “nasty man”, blah, blah. Ok How do you do it then?

Edited 1 hour ago by Sir Ralph

[hypochondriac]

16 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

That does not explain how does it ?

Are you blind?

 

[Farmer Saint]

47 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

For a start change the law. Leave the ECHR, announce that anyone coming over on small boats is breaking the law and is a criminal and no one would be allowed to stay. 

Where do you send them to? How do you find out where they've come from? They just won't tell you if they knew that was being done. We've already got a similar agreement with Albania for instance, but hasn't seemed to make a difference. Countries like Eritrea - what difference does us imposing sanctions on them make?

48 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

At the same time you could offer to cooperate with the French in order to properly police things on their end.

This has been done already. What are you going to offer them over and above what's been done, and surely this is just costing us more and more money?

 

[Farmer Saint]

42 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Put people in holding centres, not hotels; no healthcare access (including dentists) (only in life or death situations), no school access (any education in holding centre if legally required to provide). You get food and no allowance. Basically you arrive, in a holding camp till your case is determined. You need to remove incentive. The problem is that if you are someone from a developed country and you can come here and chance your arm to get a lot of benefits and get closer to their standard of living, why wouldn’t you. 
 

 Ideally you would not do this to genuine asylum seekers BUT there are too many fiddling the system. If I was in genuine fear for my families life I would 100% accept this to seek to claim asylum. If you wouldn’t I would question the level of risk to you

So where are these holding camps? What is at these holding camps? Are they already built or do we need to build them? What do you class as a life or death situation as a lot of illnesses build from non-life threatening to life threatening. What happens if someone breaks their wrist for example? Or has an abscess in their mouth that could become infected? Just wondering how and where you draw the line.

[Farmer Saint]

56 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

There could be some difficulties with it but you have to have some degree of deterrent. At the moment there is nothing, so I’m saying that Rwanda seems to be a better idea than this exchange with France, which has so far done nothing. Why can’t we just put people in large holding centres for them to be processed? If I knew I could get accommodation in central London and walk around the streets of the capital, for starters that would be more attractive than being in a holding centre

Rwanda was for 300 people. What deterrent is that for 45k people coming over. That is a 0.6% chance you'll end up there. I'd fancy my odds TBH.

It's not a deterrent and it never was.

[Farmer Saint]

43 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I actually think it's right that as a responsible country we take a reasonable share of people who are genuinely fleeing for their lives as long as they are willing to contribute to the country and share our values. I just don't believe that anyone entering the country illegally should be allowed to stay because it simply incentives everyone to try it. 

But how do you stop it? I think everyone agrees with the above. The problem is how, and that's where no-one - literally no-one - has come up with a feasible idea.

Edited 1 hour ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

Just now, Farmer Saint said:

But how do you stop it. I think everyone agrees with the above. The problem is how, and that's where no-one - literally no-one - has come up with a feasible idea.

No body has tried to implement a robust idea yet 

[hypochondriac]

14 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Where do you send them to? How do you find out where they've come from? They just won't tell you if they knew that was being done. We've already got a similar agreement with Albania for instance, but hasn't seemed to make a difference. Countries like Eritrea - what difference does us imposing sanctions on them make?

This has been done already. What are you going to offer them over and above what's been done, and surely this is just costing us more and more money?

 

I agree it will cost quite a lot of money initially but over time it will cost less once the infrastructure is up and running and less people come because they know they won't be staying. I would look to revive the idea of an overseas territory or a nearby island for processing but I accept that has difficulties or may be unfeasible. I see that other countries have looked for agreements with Rwanda but if something like that is tried it needs to be done properly. The main thing is to get many people being deported in a short space of time and keep it running so that the message gets out there that if you come here illegally you aren't staying. I'd simultaneously be looking at old army barracks-like Weathersfield and maybe looking to expand them- to see how much of that can be repurposed to hold people whilst they are processed. Once people realise that once they get here they won't be staying and it will likely be worse than France the numbers are very likely to go down significantly. I also saw the idea mooted of paying some people to leave but I'm not sure how successful that would be because it would likely act as a pull factor for some. 

Edited 1 hour ago by hypochondriac

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, Sir Ralph said:

No body has tried to implement a robust idea yet 

What idea?

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

But how do you stop it? I think everyone agrees with the above. The problem is how, and that's where no-one - literally no-one - has come up with a feasible idea.

There are ideas outlined above for reducing the number coming here. It won't stop it entirely but the numbers coming will be much lower. I completely understand if people disagree with those ideas or think they are not what we should be doing but they do exist. 

[Sir Ralph]

5 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

What idea?

Why would  more robust policy like reforms not work? You at least need to implement a harder line policy for a few months and send the message out. We then become less attractive

[Sir Ralph]

36 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

1. So if I have health problems that I want to fix for free I can come to the UK to get it done?

2. Why should somebody who doesn’t have full citizenship right and hasn’t contributed to our society yet get the same benefit as somebody who has?

I take it that would be prefer to continue persecution or die rather than live in the circumstances I suggested due to a lack of a response on that?

Let me remind you that you asked how things could change to remove the incentive. I said this is how you could do it and “nasty man”, blah, blah. Ok How do you do it then?

@tdmickey3 I await your response

Edited 1 hour ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

I agree it will cost quite a lot of money initially but over time it will cost less once the infrastructure is up and running and less people come because they know they won't be staying. I would look to revive the idea of an overseas territory or a nearby island for processing but I accept that has difficulties or may be unfeasible. I see that other countries have looked for agreements with Rwanda but if something like that is tried it needs to be done properly. The main thing is to get many people being deported in a short space of time and keep it running so that the message gets out there that if you come here illegally you aren't staying. I'd simultaneously be looking at old army barracks to see how much of that can be repurposed to hold people whilst they are processed. Once people realise that once they get here they won't be staying and it will likely be worse than France the numbers are very likely to go down significantly. I also saw the idea mooted of paying some people to leave but I'm not sure how successful that would be because it would likely act as a pull factor for some. 

I'd take the money, then just come back, wouldn't you? Other countries have looked at Rwanda, and also decided it doesn't work.

Old army barracks could work, but then they'd need to be massively renovated to be inhabitable, and how long is that going to take? How do you control them and keep them there - I'm assuming you'd have the army posted there as well?

If you read the link I put above, there have been many studies showing that disincentives don't work.

If these are the best ideas that the world can come up with, and even you are picking holes in it and saying they could be unfeasible, does that not tell you there is nothing you can really do to solve it?

[Farmer Saint]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

There are ideas outlined above for reducing the number coming here. It won't stop it entirely but the numbers coming will be much lower. I completely understand if people disagree with those ideas or think they are not what we should be doing but they do exist. 

But you're saying it will reduce the numbers, but as the link above showed, these type of things don't seem to make a difference to the numbers.

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Why would  more robust policy like reforms not work? You at least need to implement a harder line policy for a few months and send the message out. We then become less attractive

What is Reform's policy?

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

I'd take the money, then just come back, wouldn't you? Other countries have looked at Rwanda, and also decided it doesn't work.

Old army barracks could work, but then they'd need to be massively renovated to be inhabitable, and how long is that going to take? How do you control them and keep them there - I'm assuming you'd have the army posted there as well?

If you read the link I put above, there have been many studies showing that disincentives don't work.

If these are the best ideas that the world can come up with, and even you are picking holes in it and saying they could be unfeasible, does that not tell you there is nothing you can really do to solve it?

I disagree but  I think we will only know this if and when reform get into power and whether their migration policies work 

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

What is Reform's policy?

If you’re genuinely interested it’s under Operation Restoring Justice on their website. Worth a read even if you disagree with them.
 

https://www.reformparty.uk/

Edited 58 minutes ago by Sir Ralph

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

I'd take the money, then just come back, wouldn't you? Other countries have looked at Rwanda, and also decided it doesn't work.

Old army barracks could work, but then they'd need to be massively renovated to be inhabitable, and how long is that going to take? How do you control them and keep them there - I'm assuming you'd have the army posted there as well?

If you read the link I put above, there have been many studies showing that disincentives don't work.

If these are the best ideas that the world can come up with, and even you are picking holes in it and saying they could be unfeasible, does that not tell you there is nothing you can really do to solve it?

How do you keep anyone anywhere? I'd keep it secure. I agree it would need time to get it ready but we could make resources and kit it out properly if there was the will to do so. I agree that this would be expensive and potentially difficult but it isn't impossible so it's not true to say that there is nothing that can be done about it, particularly because they haven't been tried properly. If we get to a situation where people are housed in basic accommodation securely with others and substantial number are leaving regularly and attempted crossings don't come down then I will accept there is nothing that can really be done. 

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

But you're saying it will reduce the numbers, but as the link above showed, these type of things don't seem to make a difference to the numbers.

What link? Have we poured resources into expanding an old army barrack in order to securely hold people whilst they are processed? Have we left the ECHR and are we looking into deporting as many people as we can and ignoring the charity and activists looking to delay and hold up flights? Hypothetically if we did that for a year and it makes no difference to numbers then I would hold my hands up and say I was wrong. 

Edited 56 minutes ago by hypochondriac

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

What link? Have we poured resources into expanding an old army barrack in order to securely hold people whilst they are processed? Have we left the ECHR and are we looking into deporting as many people as we can and ignoring the charity and activists looking to delay and hold up flights? 

How do you report them though - that's the problem? We can all come up with ideas as to what to do, but putting that into practice is the issue. Countries will just deny they are theirs, or the claimants will lie as to where they're from. What do you do in that scenario?

1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said:

Interesting piece about it here:

https://www.brunel.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/articles/Is-the-Rwanda-plan-acting-as-a-deterrent-Here's-what-the-evidence-says-about-this-approach

 

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

, you could look into creating a processing facility on a smaller island but that might not be feasible. 

Portsea ?

[Farmer Saint]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

How do you keep anyone anywhere? I'd keep it secure. I agree it would need time to get it ready but we could make resources and kit it out properly if there was the will to do so. I agree that this would be expensive and potentially difficult but it isn't impossible so it's not true to say that there is nothing that can be done about it, particularly because they haven't been tried properly. If we get to a situation where people are housed in basic accommodation securely with others and substantial number are leaving regularly and attempted crossings don't come down then I will accept there is nothing that can really be done. 

The accommodation by us is utterly basic - so dilapidated you wouldn't want to even set foot in it. 

Either way, it is a means to an end where they are going to be accepted and can live and work here. It's not a deterrent, considering where they have come from and the dangers on the way.

 

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

How do you report them though - that's the problem? We can all come up with ideas as to what to do, but putting that into practice is the issue. Countries will just deny they are theirs, or the claimants will lie as to where they're from. What do you do in that scenario?

 

Some we already know who they are, I'd be putting resources into finding out the identities of some of them. Others if they refuse to say where they're from would be detained until they talk or if we do make agreements with a third party country they can be sent there. What we definitely shouldn't do is let someone unknown roam the country because they won't tell us who they are.

[hypochondriac]

Just now, Farmer Saint said:

The accommodation by us is utterly basic - so dilapidated you wouldn't want to even set foot in it. 

Either way, it is a means to an end where they are going to be accepted and can live and work here. It's not a deterrent, considering where they have come from and the dangers on the way.

 

It obviously is a deterrent. You talk as if all these people are fleeing for their lives. They aren't. That perception is half the problem.

[Farmer Saint]

11 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

If you’re genuinely interested it’s under Operation Restoring Justice on their website. Worth a read even if you disagree with them.
 

https://www.reformparty.uk/

I'm not going to their website and giving it footfall, sorry. 

But if it's the stuff about leave to remain and not allowing people to claim benefits, I'm not sure that's going to do much. ATM you can only claim benefits after 5 years I thought. People come here to work, not live off the state.

[badgerx16]

I wonder if those people saying "leave the EHCR" are really happy to accept all the consequences that would follow.

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Some we already know who they are, I'd be putting resources into finding out the identities of some of them. Others if they refuse to say where they're from would be detained until they talk or if we do make agreements with a third party country they can be sent there. What we definitely shouldn't do is let someone unknown roam the country because they won't tell us who they are.

I'm not saying they won't tell you, but they'd say they're from somewhere else and use their identity. Again, easy to do when you come from these countries where ID is not really a thing.

[Farmer Saint]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It obviously is a deterrent. You talk as if all these people are fleeing for their lives. They aren't. That perception is half the problem.

Why is it obviously a deterrent? There is no evidence of that.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

Why is it obviously a deterrent? There is no evidence of that.

Having a more robust policy worked very well for Australia. We've never tried it so there's no evidence it wouldn't work.

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

I wonder if those people saying "leave the EHCR" are really happy to accept all the consequences that would follow.

I haven't said that. What I'm replying to is the idea that there is nothing we can do. 

[Sir Ralph]

13 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

The accommodation by us is utterly basic - so dilapidated you wouldn't want to even set foot in it. 

Either way, it is a means to an end where they are going to be accepted and can live and work here. It's not a deterrent, considering where they have come from and the dangers on the way.

 

Have you been in the accommodation?

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

I'm not saying they won't tell you, but they'd say they're from somewhere else and use their identity. Again, easy to do when you come from these countries where ID is not really a thing.

Right so deport those whose identities we can ascertain, put resources into finding out the true identities of others, detain those who refuse to say. Not a perfect system by any means but would see numbers fall.