Are We A Christian Country Now?

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Axe said:

He is wrong.  The House of Lords are wrong in delaying the Rwanda plan being implemented. Deterring illegal small boat crossings will result in fewer lives being lost in the English Channel. 

It would if it actually was a deterrent.

Only the Tories think that is the case.  I think it won't make a blind bit of difference, except to waste us lot's more money.

 

Pointless anyway because for every one of the boat people,  the government will let in 15 times as many quite legally.

We don't have the housing,  medics, schools,  roads etc.  for that increase in population every year.

[Axe]

1 minute ago, Organgrinder said:

It would if it actually was a deterrent.

Only the Tories think that is the case.  I think it won't make a blind bit of difference, except to waste us lot's more money.

 

Pointless anyway because for every one of the boat people,  the government will let in 15 times as many quite legally.

We don't have the housing,  medics, schools,  roads etc.  for that increase in population every year.

Nobody can say it will not be a deterrent until the Rwanda plan is implemented.

 

I agree legal immigration is far too high and is a drain on our infrastructure.  We need a government to stop a surplus total  figure for immigration. 

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Axe said:

Nobody can say it will not be a deterrent until the Rwanda plan is implemented.

 

On the same basis,  nobody can say that it WILL be a deterrent either,  although that's not stopping Sunak from saying it.

 

Rather a lot of money and effort to put in place for something which  may,   or may not,   work.

 

It would be far more productive to spend that money on improving our immigration system,  make better legal channels of application from France,  and processing the ones already here.

[peak4]

With an overall cost of £1.9millon per deportee, we could build vetted asylum seekers a house, provide job training ,so they contribute to the economy, and still have a bundle of money left over to build a few more homes for  UK citizens on our housing waiting lists.

‘National scandal’ as shock report reveals Rwanda plan costs to top £500m  Independent

Just 300 asylum seekers will be sent to Rwanda at a cost of £1.9m each, the National Audit Office report found

 

Here's one of the Lords amendments the Tories voted down. Why should anyone in a distant conflict ever agree to help UK troops in the future?
Regardless of whether one agrees with the Rwanda bill or not, to me this is shameful.

In many cases, these are people who have previously been promised the UK's support.

Lords vote to exempt heroes who supported UK troops from flights to Rwanda    Independent

Peers have voted to exempt Afghan heroes who have supported UK troops from being sent to Rwanda as part of Rishi Sunak’s flagship small boats bill.

The House of Lords backed an amendment on Wednesday night that would prevent the government from removing anyone who supported British armed forces in an “exposed or meaningful manner” from being deported to the African country.

It comes after extensive reporting by The Independent on the plight of Afghan heroes who helped the British but were left behind after the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan.

Two former chiefs of defence staff, a former defence secretary and a former British ambassador to the US were among the Lords who supported the clause. Peers voted 244 to 160 in favour of the amendment tabled by Labour peer Des Browne, which also covers the family members of those who supported British troops.

The Independent has documented a number of cases of asylum seekers who supported the UK armed forces efforts in Afghanistan and who have since been threatened with removal to Rwanda after arriving in the UK via small boat.

 

Sunak rejects Lords’ plan to protect Afghan heroes from deportation to Rwanda   Yahoo News

Rishi Sunak has rejected a plan to stop Afghan heroes who supported British troops from being deported to Rwanda.

MPs on Monday night overturned all 10 amendments to the Safety of Rwanda Bill by the House of Lords, including one that would have exempted anyone who supported British armed forces in an “exposed or meaningful manner” from being deported to the east African country.

Some 312 MPs voted against the Lords amendment, with 255 voting in favour, giving the government a majority of 57.

[Axe]

31 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

On the same basis,  nobody can say that it WILL be a deterrent either,  although that's not stopping Sunak from saying it.

 

Rather a lot of money and effort to put in place for something which  may,   or may not,   work.

 

It would be far more productive to spend that money on improving our immigration system,  make better legal channels of application from France,  and processing the ones already here.

You rightly pointed out in post #31 that legal immigration numbers are too high which are a strain on resources and are now suggesting better legal channels of applications take place in France.  More legal channels would just increase the numbers of immigration further.

 

Regarding the Rwanda plan the money has already been spent so it makes sense to implement the plan to establish whether it is a successful deterrent.  For it to be a successful deterrent the legal loopholes need to be stopped and it has to be made perfectly clear to those thinking about making an illegal channel crossing that they will end up in Rwanda. 

[Mkapaka]

Back on topic - bar some technicality’s around the Anglican Church in England - less than half of the country identify as Christian,

so the majority of the country is non Christian. 
 

So that explains that.

[AndrewC]

16 hours ago, Baron99 said:

The last census results. 

 

Across England and Wales, 46% of people identified as being Christian.

And I bet you half of those are just saying they're Christian as a default answer, out of habit from childhood, despite the fact they haven't practised their religion in any meaningful way in years.

 

15 hours ago, Axe said:

the Magna Carta honoured. 

Did she die in vain? 😞

[Guest]

59 minutes ago, Axe said:

You rightly pointed out in post #31 that legal immigration numbers are too high which are a strain on resources and are now suggesting better legal channels of applications take place in France.  More legal channels would just increase the numbers of immigration further.

 

Regarding the Rwanda plan the money has already been spent so it makes sense to implement the plan to establish whether it is a successful deterrent.  For it to be a successful deterrent the legal loopholes need to be stopped and it has to be made perfectly clear to those thinking about making an illegal channel crossing that they will end up in Rwanda. 

You have now quoted the very argument that the Tories have followed,  which has got them into the mess they are in now,

There is NO REASON why,  having legal channels to apply for asylum in France would increase the numbers any more.

 

We need proper policies for asylum and  immigration and to ensure they work,  we need national identity cards so that NO ONE can live in this country unknown.

If would be asylum seekers applied in Calais or Paris and were turned down,  they would have no reason to smuggle themselves over the channel,  knowing that they would NOT be allowed to stay

 

I won't even bother discussing the "Rwanda Plan" because it's so obviously not going to work anyway and was just a play for time by the Tories.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Axe said:

You rightly pointed out in post #31 that legal immigration numbers are too high which are a strain on resources and are now suggesting better legal channels of applications take place in France.  More legal channels would just increase the numbers of immigration further.

 

Regarding the Rwanda plan the money has already been spent so it makes sense to implement the plan to establish whether it is a successful deterrent.  For it to be a successful deterrent the legal loopholes need to be stopped and it has to be made perfectly clear to those thinking about making an illegal channel crossing that they will end up in Rwanda. 

It has already been made perfectly clear,  by the government,   that the vast majority of them  will  NOT end up in Rwanda,  but only a very limited few.

The rest,  we will still have to deal with,  so we should make a start on dealing with them instead of playing games.

[prince al]

No need for the Rwanda plan, return the boats back to the French shore.