You couldn't make it up...

It's only a one off. These things are peanuts in the scheme of things. ;)
 
wonder what the cost of a minibus would have been
 
I have frequently found that the cheaper way to get between cities by car is via a limo service vs a taxi or minibus. From the article it appears that SERCO footed the bill, so I assume they would have tried to find the cheapest transport.
 
£3k for the hire of the hummer, you could buy a clapped out mini bus and still had change...or put them on the train
 
I refuse to believe 3k was the cheapest option.

They quoted more than once "It won't cost the taxpayer any extra", any extra than what? 3 grand?
Someone, at some point thought "This is a good idea" and booked the limo.
They don't need to introduce new internal procedures, they just need to sack the muppet that made the decision.
 
Thing is, whether it was a 3k limo or a £300 minibus, the tax payer is funding it.
 
Don't Megga bus just charge a £1 when you book in advance?
 
That works out at £12 a mile , about the same as black cab in London then
 
So that is £0.76 per person per mile, about £0.36 above what HMRC allows us tax payers to claim.
 
dejongj said:
So that is £0.76 per person per mile, about £0.36 above what HMRC allows us tax payers to claim.
Click to expand...
Ah but that's only if travelling separately, it's only 2p a mile for additional passengers. ;)
 
Lol good point well made. Having looked it up the current guidance is actually £0.45 for the driver (assuming he/she has claimed less than 10k miles. But passenger supplement stands at 5p now. So that is £0.45 + (£0.05 * 15) = £1.20 in total per mile. Tax payers get a very raw deal compared to assylum seekers.
 
dejongj said:
Lol good point well made. Having looked it up the current guidance is actually £0.45 for the driver (assuming he/she has claimed less than 10k miles. But passenger supplement stands at 5p now. So that is £0.45 + (£0.05 * 15) = £1.20 in total per mile. Tax payers get a very raw deal compared to assylum seekers.
Click to expand...
Stirrer...

Because clearly all asylum seekers are chauffeur driven everywhere and all tax payers are hard done to. :(
 
Phil V said:
Stirrer...

Because clearly all asylum seekers are chauffeur driven everywhere and all tax payers are hard done to. :(
Click to expand...
:p ;) indeed

Actually many are! However the root cause is government policy as they aren't allowed to work and thus have the ability to provide for themselves taken away. I do not agree with that since providing for yourself and your family is a very primary concept.
 
It's more procedural than policy, 'asylum seeker' is a temporary status, from where (as you know) someone gets to stay here temporarily (often 5 years) or permanently, or they have to leave. For the ones who can stay, they have similar rights and expectations as the rest of us, including work and benefits - which leads to the moronic assertion that they get treated better than 'us'.

The process is handled badly, creating much of the bad feeling towards the asylum seekers themselves.

The 'badly' we do this is terrible from both a 'send em home' and a 'how can you treat human beings like that' viewpoint, which is a shame for me personally, because the Home Office pay better than most govt departments, and they're close enough to make it viable :(
 
I sort off agree, the time taken to "process" an asylum seeker seems to be taking way too long for that temporary status to make logical sense where they aren't allowed to work. For a few weeks then I can see the benefit of the current system, but in many cases it can take many years and then it doesn't make logical sense to me.

Ofcourse it isn't so simplistic as one has to look at the individual cases as to why it takes so long. Including the appeals process which can prolong the stay significantly. But in the mean time it's the black economy for them.
 
3K is the cost to serco - i believe they are on a set price contract with HMG so the cost to the tax payer wouldn't vary if they chose to transport asylum seekers individually in gold plated paladin chairs carried by nubile amazons, or conversely made them hitch hike
 
big soft moose said:
3K is the cost to serco - i believe they are on a set price contract with HMG so the cost to the tax payer wouldn't vary if they chose to transport asylum seekers individually in gold plated paladin chairs carried by nubile amazons, or conversely made them hitch hike
Click to expand...
Have you got access to the actual contract? That is a big assumption to make.
 
it was stated three times in the article concerned - so reported fact not assumption
 
big soft moose said:
it was stated three times in the article concerned - so reported fact not assumption
Click to expand...
So why do you then say that you believe they are on a fixed price contract ;) if it is a fact there no believing involved.
 
I believe from reading the article - its a figure of speech

to whit (my bold)

A Home Office spokesman said Serco was responsible for arranging the transport and there was no additional cost to the taxpayer.

"However, this incident was totally inappropriate and Serco has apologised," the spokesman added.

"The terms of our contract with Serco requires them to take all reasonable steps to ensure transport is appropriate. We have reminded the company of their contractual obligations and expressed our strong disapproval."

Jenni Halliday, Serco's director for the Compass contract with the Home Office, said, "The transport provided, on this one occasion in July, was clearly inappropriate.

"There was no additional cost to the taxpayer. We have apologised to the Home Office and our internal processes have been changed to ensure that this will not happen again."
Click to expand...

so both the govt and serco have confirmed that there's no additional cost the the taxpayer - it can't be much clearer than that.
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
I believe from reading the article - its a figure of speech
Click to expand...
Not what you said the first time ;) it would be so much easier when one doesn't have to fill in the bits that someone leaves out ;)
 
its exactly what I said the first time - both serco and HMG have said there isn't an increase in cost to the tax payer from the transport used - therefore (by a process of deduction using this thing called 'my brain' and a concept known as 'logical thought' - both of which seem to be alien to some posters) they are on a fixed price contract with serco responsible for the transport costs

a clue to this from the original article is where the HMG guy says "Serco was responsible for arranging the transport and there was no additional cost to the taxpayer"
 
big soft moose said:
its exactly what I said the first time - both serco and HMG have said there isn't an increase in cost to the tax payer from the transport used - therefore (by a process of deduction using this thing called 'my brain' and a concept known as 'logical thought' - both of which seem to be alien to some posters) they are on a fixed price contract with serco responsible for the transport costs

a clue to this from the original article is where the HMG guy says "Serco was responsible for arranging the transport and there was no additional cost to the taxpayer"
Click to expand...
As I said have you got the facts of the contract. Just because you believe and deduct something from a reported event in a news article doesn't mean it is so. Many of these contracts are highly complex and rarely in favour of the department.

Just because there is no additional cost for this event doesn't have to mean they are on a fixed price.
 
Last edited:
Chauffeur driven limo, now a private jet, I'm in the wrong business :D

At least 54 private jets were hired by the Government, with an average of 53 passengers per flight, according to figures obtained under freedom of information legislation by the Daily Mail.

In one instance, just 11 Afghan illegal immigrants were sent home in one aircraft.

On another occasion, a 265-seat plane was used to carry only 25 Nigerians.

Other planes were sent to Pakistan, Jamaica and Albania.

Each plane comes at an estimated cost of £250,000, taking the total expense to about £13.5m.
Click to expand...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...used-to-carry-failed-asylum-seekers-home.html
 
neil_g said:
i would have thought the daily mail would approve of getting dem immagants out of the country by whatever method.
Click to expand...
I'm sure they are, but nothing like a good back story on how the Government waste money doing it :D
 
It staggers me how much money this country wastes on over-paid contracts and contractors. When I worked for a large IT service provider on government contracts, the amount of money paid to jumped-up glory-boys for doing very simple work was embarassing.
 
ZoneV said:
It staggers me how much money this country wastes on over-paid contracts and contractors. When I worked for a large IT service provider on government contracts, the amount of money paid to jumped-up glory-boys for doing very simple work was embarassing.
Click to expand...
Independence day said:
President Thomas Whitmore: I don't understand, where does all this come from? How do you get funding for something like this (area 51) ?
Julius Levinson: You don't actually think they spend $20,000 on a hammer, $30,000 on a toilet seat, do you?
Click to expand...

:D
 
Last edited:
Cobra said:
:D
Click to expand...

Heh, if only it was being syphoned off for something useful!

Nope, these guys were being paid about £25-30 per hour (about 10 years ago) to attend a very straightforward meeting (I did dozens of them myself). Of course they'd want to travel down the night before (time paid at full hourly rate plus fuel) and stay in a hotel, have an evening meal etc (all on the expenses, i.e. the taxpayer).

It was a crazy waste of money.
 
ZoneV said:
Heh, if only it was being syphoned off for something useful!
Click to expand...
Not area 51 then? :D

Actually I do know know what you mean ;)
and yes I agree its outrageous!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top