It's this **** that pisses me off. Your talking about keeping these fuking illegals here. Get them ****ing gone not moved. Christ
Yeah probably. I’d question who gets anything out of that because it sounds mental but cba right now. Maybe later.
It probably is but the perception is going to be a) not good enough and b) why does it take four years? The people kicking off and the media intent on making immigration the biggest topic of the day whether it should be or not are only going to be placated by big headlines on numbers moving in the opposite direction.
I know you're bored, and probably feeling a bit jaded by world events, but you do realise you're talking to an actual plank of wood?
US TV hosts rally around Jimmy Kimmel and call out Trump & Co for their 'free speech' hypocrisy... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyxjve3pe2o
yeah thats how i know how the scheme operates and if you read the article instead of the headlines you would find It proposes that, for each migrant the UK returns to France, another migrant with a strong case for asylum in the UK will be allowed to come in return, the first of whom is expected in the coming days.
Interesting that homing immigrants in army barracks has been mentioned on here today. I must point out it has already been tried and rejected because the barracks were classed "not fit to live in" despite them being perfectly good enough for squaddies and their familys, Anyone know how much it costs to hire a plane from an airline company to carry one person over to France? Surely we could send them back on the ferry with a couple of guards that we pay for anyway. Anyone know what the total cost of the court cases are because we taxpayers are funding both sides in these.
I'd heard somewhere that the future intention was to build new prefabs on any remaining barracks used, I've no idea of the cost behind it. I don't know the answers to your questions btw.
@Diego I assumed, probably wrongly that a sole migrant would be sent back on any available domestic flight with an official. Only reason I think like that was because many decades ago I had a refusal of entry on my donestic flight - only problem was they kicked up, which then meant they had to removed and handed over for arrest. I think there was some procedure that removes them from customs into the hands of local police.
I was wondering because after the first return got refused i read suomething in BBC that said the plane had already been ordered from an airline company but never mentioned the type of plane. This took me back a few years to when we had a man actually sat on one waiting to get deported about six times and that was an airliner with about 200 seats. I think Blairs missus got that one cancelled.
Yeah I remember something about planes being cancelled in the past. I would assume that once the migrant has been refused entry, they get a day or two to let them digest that decision mentally, and assuming they pose no risk and the legality has been fully explained to them, that they are then booked on a normal domestic flight accompanied by an official (no restraints), that would seem the cheapest and most logical option to me. IF they pose a risk or kick up, as some could possibily do in an attempt to be removed from the flight, then we take them by road in the back of secure police vehicle if need be. I'd have thought all these options are a far cheaper than booking an whole aircraft. I think we are only looking at 50 a month in the first year. Rwanda was different because of the natural geographical issues attached to that.
I dont K ow either but I do know using the navy to stop them getting here in the 1st place is the most logical and economically sound way of avoiding all these ****ing costs. But apparently that's far to radical an idea for some. Yknow... Using the navy to protect our borders like. please log in to view this image
