Comment on Labour Policies : Labour Crime and Justice Policy by David.

That took me a minute to figure out what the p*****d word was :-)

I’d not seen this before reading your comment.

From the article at:http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/147699/Foreign-criminals-handed-%A35,000-taxpayer-funded-gift/

Details of the cashcard scheme were given to Parliament in a written answer by Immigration Minister Phil Woolas.

It applies to foreign offenders who are removed from the UK under the Facilitated Return Scheme, which he said accounted for about a third of the 5,295 deported last year.

The scheme lets non-European foreign prisoners volunteer to return to their home countries rather than wait to be deported by the UK Border Agency. The Agency believes offering a greater amount of the support in cash encourages more foreign convicts to take up the offer of going home voluntarily.

Those eligible include people who have finished their sentences and are being detained solely under immigration rules.

It includes those who qualify for the Early Removal Scheme and leave before completing their sentences as well as non-Europeans from countries with which the UK has a prisoner transfer arrangement.

Mr Woolas said: “Foreign nationals removed under this scheme will receive the equivalent of a discharge grant payable to British prisoners, which is £46.

“This is paid on departure from the UK. In addition to this, a further sum of £454 on a pre-paid card will be given on departure which is for use on arrival in the home country.” The cashpoint cards can be used by the former convicts within three months of returning home.

They are part of a package worth up to £3,000 for those who volunteer to go home at the end of their sentences or up to £5,000 for those who have served minimum tariffs and apply to leave before completing their jail terms.

Housing foreign criminals for crimes including murder and rape has cost the public £3.4billion since Labour came to power in 1997.

The number of foreign nationals held in the overcrowded prisons of England and Wales has doubled in the last 10 years and they represent more than 14 per cent of inmates.

Last month the Daily Express revealed how taxpayers face a bill of more than £3.4million to encourage foreign criminals to go home.

The number taking up the offer of support in exchange for leaving has soared more than 60 per cent in the last year.

The payments are being made despite pledges by Prime Minister Gordon Brown to kick out law-breaking foreigners automatically.

Last year, 1,350 foreign criminals used the Facilitated Return Scheme, getting assistance worth an average of £2,500.

Mr Woolas last night insisted: “It saves money because foreign criminals are removed from jail or immigration detention, often before their sentence ends.

“Every day we can get them out of the country early saves taxpayers more than £100 a night in detention costs. Last year we removed a record 5,400 foreign national prisoners.”

Officials stressed that the amounts paid depended on each prisoner’s circumstances.

Do I agree with the concept of rewarding criminals, absolutely NOT!

Do I agree with saving tax payers money, YES.

Does this save us money?

It would appear so, if a prisoner is removed on average 25 or more days early from prison it should save money:

The average prisoner who took up this offer benefited by ~£2,500 each.

It costs us £100 per day to house a criminal, therefore if we can remove a criminal at least 25 days earlier than waiting for their release date we’ve saved money.

The question then is how much is this saving us per prisoner, is it worth the associated negativity of rewarding criminals financially?

I don’t like this, but if it saves a lot of money….

That being said why can’t we just remove foreign prisoners quicker without having to reward them financially? What’s stopping us right now and can those hurdles be removed?

I think most people reading this will agree deporting foreign criminals is a good idea and should certainly be encouraged. The problem is paying them to leave!

Do we take the high moral ground and say NO WAY to rewarding criminals or think longer term, the saved money could go to pensioners, soldiers, better services?

At least this policy appears to save the country money unlike the voluntary repatriation scheme the BNP have as policy to remove law abiding immigrants from Britain, that BNP policy will not only remove hard working immigrants, but cost tax payers billions in bribes, far more expensive and damaging than Labours policy.

Labour pays criminals £2,500 to leave.
BNP pays legal immigrants over £10,000 to leave.

At least Labour are removing criminals. I hate the idea of rewarding criminals, but I’m torn between my morals and saving money for better services for the law abiding British people!!!

I have moral objections to Labour’s policy, but have no issue with saying no the BNP’s planned policy of removing legal immigrants.

Very interesting Labour policy to debate though, I’m getting pulled both ways.

David

More Comments on Labour Policies : Labour Crime and Justice Policy by David


Labour Policies : Labour Crime and Justice Policy

Absolutely Terence, if you want to discus any parties policies in a reasoned way I’ll probably be involved, (some policies don’t interest me, but many do) that’s why I’ve posted …


Labour Policies : Labour Crime and Justice Policy

“the thing is David discussing policies should have been done years ago,why has it become so important to discuss BNP policies why not discuss the lib lab .com policies I …


Labour Policies : Labour Crime and Justice Policy

BTW This is the sort of discussion I wanted from this site when I decided to create it, I want to learn more about politics not waste my time endlessly …


Labour Policies : Labour Crime and Justice Policy

OK, since currently we can’t remove them legally early, what about financial incentives IF it saves the tax payer money?

If it’s £100 a day and we can get a foreign …


Labour Policies : Labour Crime and Justice Policy

IF we can legally remove them just as fast without financial incentives of course we should.

If we can legally remove them, why don’t we?

It suggests we can’t and I find …


More Comments by David


Liberal Democrats Easy Read Manifesto 2017

Thanks for letting me know I’d added the wrong link to the Lib Dems Easy Read Manifesto: benefit of using the Labour manifesto article as a template, easy to make …


Government response : Introduce a moratorium on the hunting of critically declining wading birds petition

Government responded while there were 14,863 signatures (October 21st 2016).

It is unlikely that hunting has had a significant impact on recent population trends for woodcock, snipe and golden plover; trends …


Introduce a moratorium on the hunting of critically declining wading birds petition

Another petition regarding woodcock, snipe and golden plover : https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/167410

Woodcock, Snipe and Golden Plover are shot in the UK despite serious, ongoing population declines. A moratorium should be imposed to …


BNP are a Political Party in Decline

If you’ve been following the BNP since just before the 2010 general election you’d know the BNP are in real trouble with infighting, money problems and generally self-destructive behaviour.

Apparently BNP …


Alternative Vote Better than First Past the Post

Although I don’t particularly like the Alternative Vote system (I agree with Nick, a miserable little compromise) it’s at least better than First Past the Post voting system.

The vast majority …