Sadly that is so true. £7 million a day in hotels I've heard claimed, Alex Brooker said on the Last Leg, Truss is costing us £28m an HOUR with her time as PM
Thing is, they could spend that money on proper processing centres with decent facilities, then open a method/system where people can apply for asylum/entry to the UK without needing the risk their lives in dinghies.
Instead, they predictably follow the shyster approach of outsourcing to arsehole private companies like G4S, Capita, Mitie, whose primary objective is to maximise profit, so we get situations like Manston where the accomodation is rat-infested, cold, unsanitary, etc.
This is from Wiki, discussin the 'Tinsley Model' (which was more a 'removal centre' but the principle should be the same:
The original senior management of Tinsley House, specifically the centre director and its operations manager, pioneered an adapted version of Wackenhut's philosophy of "Dynamic Security" that promoted a regime of caring custody, emphasising positive relations between staff and detainees and encouraging the respectful and sensitive handling of all detainee related issues.
This concerned approach towards detainee management was quickly embraced by the centre's chaplain, who reinforced the existing commitment to caring custody through the creation of specialised training programmes for the centre's staff and by increasing the size and diversity of the centre's chaplaincy team.
With the active support of the centre's senior management, the Tinsley House chaplaincy set about the task of addressing in detail the dietary, cultural, religious and social needs of the centre's population inviting a variety of religious ministers and representatives of cultural groups to attend the centre to provide pastoral support. Tinsley House became the first detention centre in the United Kingdom to operate a comprehensive regime of religious and cultural observance and to operate a diversity of permanent religious facilities.
The attention to religious and cultural needs combined with an overt commitment on the part of the detention centre staff towards treating those in their custody with care and sensitivity began to impact the environment and operations at Tinsley House. Detainees would write messages of appreciation to members of staff noting their efforts of assistance and staff would regularly form respectful friendships with those in their charge.
The product of this regime, which became known as the "Tinsley Model" was to result in an environment which, during its first decade of operations, incurred no incidence of death, riot or disturbance; a performance which remains unmatched in the history of the UK Immigration Service.
The "Tinsley Model" attracted the attention of the Prince of Wales as well as numerous religious and political leaders and was cited as being a graphic example of the effectiveness of "caring custody".[28]
In December 2001 the senior chaplain of Tinsley House authored a report to the Home Secretary detailing the essence of the Tinsley Model, recording its positive effects and outlining how this regime might be exported throughout the Immigration estate. The report was signed by sixteen bishops, four leading Muslim clerics, representatives of the Sikh and Hindu communities, four members of the House of Lords and the Member of Parliament for Crawley.
The Home Office response to this proposal was to pass it to the Immigration Minister who forwarded it to the head of the Immigration Service who in turn requested that it be actioned by the director responsible for Detention Operations. The Detention Operations department of the Immigration Service did not accept the findings of the report and expressed their displeasure at the centre's operating company (now Group 4) "interfering" in government policy issues and which resulted in the suspension of the centre's senior chaplain.
A month after this report was published; the newest facility in the Immigration estate, the £40 million Yarl's Wood detention centre near Bedford was largely destroyed by fire as a result of altercations between staff and detainees.
With a lack of support from the Immigration Service, the introduction of Group 4's management style (with its largely prison based philosophies) and the departure of the centre's original management team, the "Tinsley Model" became increasingly difficult to maintain resulting in a decline in the centre's previously caring regime.
In 2009 an unannounced inspection of Tinsley House by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons reported that "conditions had generally deteriorated and the arrangements for children and single women were now wholly unacceptable" and that "staff talked openly about an increased prison culture encroaching on Tinsley House's previously relaxed atmosphere".[29] The gradual erosion of the centre's initial regime of "Caring Custody" effectively marked the end of the "Tinsley Model" and with it the dynamic of the chaplaincy's intensive pastoral care which had been a fundamental feature of the model.
Poll