What is that "mate" of mine Sadiq Khan trying to achieve ?

 

You lost you demented little cretin, get over it and concentrate on your job you terrorist sympathiser.

2 hours ago, royal white said:

You can always depend on Lammy 

 

 

Starmer has surrounded himself with them. Clowns. The prime mover in keeping Burnham well away.

The sooner he is ousted the better. The one to gain most advantage would be the Labour Party so maybe not.

3 hours ago, royal white said:

You can always depend on Lammy 

 

 

I'm amazed every time I see him, he really is useless. Fuck knows not only how he's managed to climb so high, but how he's managed to actually stay there. 

2 minutes ago, Sweep said:

I'm amazed every time I see him, he really is useless. Fuck knows not only how he's managed to climb so high, but how he's managed to actually stay there. 

Think about 'quota's' plus surrounding yourself with those offering zero threat to your position. Likely a combination of the two is the answer you are are looking for.

5 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

Think about 'quota's' plus surrounding yourself with those offering zero threat to your position. Likely a combination of the two is the answer you are are looking for.

The greengrocer's apostrophe! 😉

21 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

Think about 'quota's' plus surrounding yourself with those offering zero threat to your position. Likely a combination of the two is the answer you are are looking for.

Aye, Boris did the same, Farage also seems to be going down the same route. Self Preservation is what its all about

15 hours ago, bolty58 said:

Let them celebrate the odd victory here and there. It is all they are likely to get.

Is what we say about Reform 

3 hours ago, Sweep said:

I'm amazed every time I see him, he really is useless. Fuck knows not only how he's managed to climb so high, but how he's managed to actually stay there. 

This is the thick inbred backward cunt that believes that men can grow wombs with surgery . 

On 05/03/2026 at 21:16, kent_white said:

I wouldn't disagree mate. The challenge is, how do you unfuck it? 

Like the bloke says in the interview, this is a pilot, aimed at people who are already in the country, and it's been shown to work elsewhere (Denmark). It sounds galling (because it is) but not doing anything is even more galling (in my opinion). 

We're going to have to take some unpalatable decisions eventually. Otherwise we're just sticking with the status quo of housing the backlog of people in hotels and/or council accommodation.

I know it's been mentioned that we could leave the ECHR and bypass the appeals process. But that would have huge implications - most notably for the Good Friday Agreement.

So given that - I'd rather be giving an unsuccessful family £40,000 than paying triple or quadruple that to house that same family in the UK while each year. Especially while we've got housing problems of our own. 

BTW - this isn't necessarily aimed at you mate - but it costs about £2000 to £6000 to cross the channel on a small boat. Plus whatever is cost to get you from home to Calais. Plus the risk you take too.

I think we pilot it - see if it works - and if it does then expand on it - along with a range of other methods. 

How? How have they managed to get to these figures? £430 a day 
 

 

2 hours ago, royal white said:

How? How have they managed to get to these figures? £430 a day 
 

 

I don't know mate. Probably private housing associations and hotel chains ripping off the taxpayer. But that's capitalism for you. I very much doubt the government are paying it because they want to. 

I imagine the £430 includes the cost for accomodation, things like security, support, transport, medical and legal services. Plus food etc. 

So that £10,000 that they are going to be paid breaks even in about 24 days. 

Hence why they've announced the pilot. 

It's not a perfect plan by any means. But if those figures are correct - and the evidence says that it stops people returning, it only strengthens the argument to implement it?

Talking as a pragmatist.

I suppose you could reinvest that money in deterrence instead. But I imagine the bill to do that would be eye watering (thinking some US ice style policy here).

So I think this one comes down to what you value more. The taxpayers money or a sense of fairness. So I can see why people are up in arms about it. But I can also see why it's being considered. 

Edited March 7Mar 7 by kent_white

A £10k payout isn't an enticement to come over to get it. Most of these people have already paid that (and more) to people smugglers to get here.

It seems that the current Govt can't do right for doing wrong with some people. They inherited a huge backlog of people waiting to be processed that were costing the country a fortune. if we can get rid of them at 25% of the cost, it needs considering even if it does seem wrong to be paying them off.

How many people were sent to Rwanda by the Tories?
How much did the Rwanda scheme cost us?

19 minutes ago, Traf said:

A £10k payout isn't an enticement to come over to get it. Most of these people have already paid that (and more) to people smugglers to get here.

It seems that the current Govt can't do right for doing wrong with some people. They inherited a huge backlog of people waiting to be processed that were costing the country a fortune. if we can get rid of them at 25% of the cost, it needs considering even if it does seem wrong to be paying them off.

How many people were sent to Rwanda by the Tories?
How much did the Rwanda scheme cost us?

Just deport them… pay for flights back…it’s not rocket science…. And don’t you think the money offered will entice others to come. Labour Party clueless. 

Why is Farage tongue tickling Trump in America again? He isn't a PM or deputy, a foreign secretary or diplomat so why is he always abroad? 

14 minutes ago, Winchester White said:

Why is Farage tongue tickling Trump in America again? He isn't a PM or deputy, a foreign secretary or diplomat so why is he always abroad? 

He's MP for Clacton, it's a shithole, so he doesn't want to be there that's for sure. 

16 minutes ago, Sweep said:

He's MP for Clacton, it's a shithole, so he doesn't want to be there that's for sure. 

Suckers with lap it though. Theres a lot of noise now on Reform councillors not doing their jobs to the real detriment to their local areas but some folk don't care.

19 hours ago, Zico said:

Is what we say about Reform 

I think even you would concede it hasn't, isn't and won't be about 'the odd victory' here and there.

Who is 'we'?

17 hours ago, Krimzon said:

This is the thick inbred backward cunt that believes that men can grow wombs with surgery . 

Should team up with that mad fucker running the Greens. Women would vote for them in droves 

12 hours ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Just deport them… pay for flights back…it’s not rocket science…. And don’t you think the money offered will entice others to come. Labour Party clueless. 

I've explained (or at least tried to explain) why you can't "just report them" on numerous occasions. 

13 hours ago, kent_white said:

I don't know mate. Probably private housing associations and hotel chains ripping off the taxpayer. But that's capitalism for you. I very much doubt the government are paying it because they want to. 

I imagine the £430 includes the cost for accomodation, things like security, support, transport, medical and legal services. Plus food etc. 

So that £10,000 that they are going to be paid breaks even in about 24 days. 

Hence why they've announced the pilot. 

It's not a perfect plan by any means. But if those figures are correct - and the evidence says that it stops people returning, it only strengthens the argument to implement it?

Talking as a pragmatist.

I suppose you could reinvest that money in deterrence instead. But I imagine the bill to do that would be eye watering (thinking some US ice style policy here).

So I think this one comes down to what you value more. The taxpayers money or a sense of fairness. So I can see why people are up in arms about it. But I can also see why it's being considered. 

I’ll keep coming back to this 

“anyone refusing will be forcibly removed” 

Thats the governments words. 

1 hour ago, royal white said:

I’ll keep coming back to this 

“anyone refusing will be forcibly removed” 

Thats the governments words. 

Which is the part they hadn't explained properly. IE - if we can get them back then on a place none wilfully - why would we pay them to go wilfully. 

I imagine is that the security costs involved in just the same way that the legal costs do. Remember that plane that was grounded because one of the passengers was booting off not so long back? Probably something to do with that?

If they are kicking off on a plane, the simple way is to handcuff them - right arm to left leg

58 minutes ago, athywhite1958 said:

If they are kicking off on a plane, the simple way is to handcuff them - right arm to left leg

Kinky bastard 🥰

1 hour ago, Spider said:

Kinky bastard 🥰

Don't knock it until you've tried it😎

On 07/03/2026 at 09:08, Traf said:

A £10k payout isn't an enticement to come over to get it. Most of these people have already paid that (and more) to people smugglers to get here.

It seems that the current Govt can't do right for doing wrong with some people. They inherited a huge backlog of people waiting to be processed that were costing the country a fortune. if we can get rid of them at 25% of the cost, it needs considering even if it does seem wrong to be paying them off.

How many people were sent to Rwanda by the Tories?
How much did the Rwanda scheme cost us?

Traitor

15 hours ago, Winchester White said:

Why is Farage tongue tickling Trump in America again? He isn't a PM or deputy, a foreign secretary or diplomat so why is he always abroad? 

It’s quite simple, because he’s a massive cunt.