Asylum hotels

[motorbiking]

I agree that we don't know to what extent it would have been a deterrent if it had gone ahead. I have never said otherwise. So you have spent a lot of effort arguing against something I have never said. The only point I have been making is that you keep saying it was already acting as a "massive deterrent" even before it started. And I keep pointing you to Oxford University who say:

they refer to 2022, In 2023 momentum was building, the government were winning court cases (and losing them), the Irish were moaning in 2024.

The number of people taking this route did not fall following the policy’s announcement in April 2022, for example.

It's super clear, what is being said.

 

[MNW67]

they refer to 2022, In 2023 momentum was building, the government were winning court cases (and losing them), the Irish were moaning in 2024

You have misunderstood again what they have written.

 

[motorbiking]

You have misunderstood again what they have written.

I propose its you who misunderstood it. You have also failed to present any evidence, despite asking me to, which I have done in detail.

 

[MNW67]

I propose its you who misunderstood it.

That seems unlikely:

If there was a deterrent effect, it was too small to see in the data.

 

[MNW67]

You have also failed to present any evidence, despite asking me to, which I have done in detail.

You want me to give evidence of what Oxford University wrote. Well, here it is again:

If there was a deterrent effect, it was too small to see in the data.

 

[motorbiking]

You want me to give evidence of what Oxford University wrote. Well, here it is again:

You haven't even quoted the whole paragraph. You have adopted Nosenout's debating style, cutting one sentence and pretending it sits without the context of the rest of the article.

I expect higher standards from you.

 

[MNW67]

You haven't even quoted the whole paragraph. You have adopted Nosenout's debating style, cutting one sentence and pretending it sits without the context of the rest of the article.

I expect higher standards from you.

You mean this:

There is no evidence that political discussions surrounding the Rwanda policy deterred small boat arrivals. The number of people taking this route did not fall following the policy’s announcement in April 2022, for example. If there was a deterrent effect, it was too small to see in the data.

It means that all the political discussions around the Rwanda plan, right up until the point that the plan became active in the summer of 2024, had no deterrent effect.

And you've got some cheek, after consistently only posting the part which was completely irrelevant.

 

[motorbiking]

You mean this:



It means that all the political discussions around the Rwanda plan,

They clearly refer to 2022.

right up until the point that the plan became active in the summer of 2024, had no deterrent effect.

That is just your opinion.

And you've got some cheek, after consistently only posting the part which was completely irrelevant.

The part which framed the whole document, but doesn't support your narrative.

 

[noseall]

The UK's Rwanda asylum scheme was not successful; it was ultimately cancelled by the Labour government and never resulted in any forced deportations of asylum seekers to Rwanda, though some people were sent under separate voluntary programmes. The scheme faced legal challenges, including the UK Supreme Court deeming it unlawful, before the new government ended it in July 2024.

 

[MNW67]

They clearly refer to 2022.

That is just your opinion.

The part which framed the whole document, but doesn't support your narrative.

They are obviously referring to all the political discussions. Unless you think the political discussions stopped in 2022 These discussions would have to include all the debates in Parliament over the Safety of Rwanda Bill which didn't end until April 2024. Otherwise it would be a meaningless and arbitrary statement. And Oxford University don't do meaningless and arbitrary statements.

There is no evidence that political discussions surrounding the Rwanda policy deterred small boat arrivals. The number of people taking this route did not fall following the policy’s announcement in April 2022, for example. If there was a deterrent effect, it was too small to see in the data.

This is how they constructed that paragraph:

The initial premise:

There is no evidence that political discussions surrounding the Rwanda policy deterred small boat arrivals.

^^ That means all the discussions up until Spring 2024.

They give one example:

The number of people taking this route did not fall following the policy’s announcement in April 2022, for example.

They conclude:

If there was a deterrent effect, it was too small to see in the data.

And they then move on to say that we will never know whether it would have had any deterrent effect if it had gone ahead because it was cancelled. Which is the bit you keep quoting.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Couple of 100 years perhaps.

Half of my lot, have only been here a little less than 1,000 years.

 

[MNW67]

You could circle on here the events which you think caused the numbers to go up and down. Court cases and announcements and such like:

 

[noseall]

They are obviously referring to all the political discussions. This would have to include all the debates in Parliament over the Safety of Rwanda Bill which didn't end until April 2024. Otherwise it would be a meaningless and arbitrary statement. And Oxford University don't do meaningless and arbitrary statements.



This is how they constructed that paragraph:

The initial premise:



They give one example:



They conclude:



It means that all the political discussions and debates had no deterrent effect. And as we know, those discussions and debates didn't end until the Spring of 2024.

And they then move onto say that we will never know whether it would have had any deterrent effect if it had gone ahead because it was cancelled.

Rwanda, just like MBK = FAIL

 

[ReganAndCarter]

Farage is using Asylum Seekers as a political tool…....................................................................................Anybody who falls for it twice is a moron

The morons are the ones who actually believe they're real asylum seekers.

And the only political tool is Starmer. His father was a tool maker, you know.

 

[ReganAndCarter]

Do you think there are any genuine asylum seekers on the boats at all?

Yes, possibly the women and children.

Oh wait..................................................................