Direct Provision

Too many

Hahaha so there are no answers, I think Iā€™ll save myself 175 pages of waffle aimed at placating a Mickey mouse political party with little connection to the real world. Pity you donā€™t have the ability to critically assess whether something will work instead of just cheerleading whatevers shovelled your direction.

Itā€™s a puff piece it seems, designed to keep the snowflakes happy, will be shelved as soon as it encounters reality.

1 Like

the mickey mouse party just got one of their policies implemented

Heā€™s here to back you now in person. You must feel ten feet tall.

What have they got implemented?

Itā€™s ok to admit you didnā€™t read it and wouldnā€™t understand it anyway. Iā€™ve explained the funding but in your exuberance at spouting your reactionary right wing views you forgot to read my other post. An absolute simpleton.

7 Likes

INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION APPLICANTS will spend no more than four months in six State-owned, not-for-profit centres before moving into their own accommodation under a new model aimed at ending the institutionalised Direct Provision system by 2024.

No you gave a nonsense political speak answer when I asked the two most pertinent questions. You just donā€™t have the backbone to assess something properly, just happy for the few likes. Take the little pat on the head and donā€™t get all upset when nothing happens.

im giving that a like

I have no idea whatā€™s going on but I gave it a like too

1 Like

Ah so if this comes to pass, and thatā€™s a big if, itā€™ll still be direct provision but now state owned. So just renamed to keep the harmless sorts happy. And letā€™s ignore that processing times and associated issues

There are some contracts but theyā€™ll be used in the short term as the accommodation is developed. Thereā€™s no prospect of paying any private provider beyond the time frame they are actually supplying accommodation. There were some concerns about potential litigation around competitiveness etc but those have been dealt with in advance.

ok bro

So no comeback. Got it. Heā€™s still on the thread you can still pretend to be brave

Direct provision is just a name. The (general) objections to the system arenā€™t related to the concept of the state providing for people, directly or indirectly. Again, itā€™s abundantly clear you havenā€™t a clue what youā€™re talking about here.

And one of those main objectiions is processing times and how long people are left without a final decision. I asked how thatā€™s going to be addressed, instead of answer, you started shrieking.

Along with the provision of housing, own homes or rooms, the other real world issue. You donā€™t have an answer to either. Itā€™s ok, youā€™re not a serious party. Community cars in rural areas and wolves. Gotcha.

Iā€™ve been thinking a bit about this ā€œown homeā€ thing. Thereā€™s no fucking way itā€™s going to happen. The state canā€™t even build its own direct provision centres or enough houses for the housing lost and now weā€™re told that itā€™s going to build a constant supply of thousands of homes for people coming out of direct provision? Nothing is going to change. These people will all stay exactly where they are at the moment except now they will be able to get jobs and ā€œintegrateā€. The government should be aware if the slightly questionable optics of this thing and be honest about whatā€™s going to happen.

Think youā€™re right,if anything itā€™ll be put on the long finger ( next govt)

Itā€™ll be easily managed. Theyā€™ll just have @Batigol and his colleagues denying landing like thereā€™s no tomorrow

1 Like

Trumpā€™s wall a do?
Paddy style