Chomper Higgot

Apart from the following: 1. The law doesn’t permit doing so. 2. There is no agreement with Rwanda to do so. 3. There’s been an election, the ineffective performative cruelty of the last Government has ended.

It seems James isn’t the only person who hasn’t thought this through. Asylum seekers have a right to enter the country to seek asylum - that’s the law. The failed Rwanda ‘asylum seeker exchange’* scheme has been cancelled. Unfortunately the UK will not be getting a refund of the hundreds of £millions the Tories handed the Rwandans, but at least their plan to handover even more hundreds of £millions has been scuppered. *I take it you are aware the Rwanda plan was an ‘exchange program’.

I’m looking forward to it. There are reports that the King’s speech shall include 30 bills to be passed in the coming parliamentary session.

Let’s see if you can work this out James. You’ve already posted report of 4 deaths crossing the channel today. You and I both know that’s just four in many hundreds. The migrants are obviously aware of the risk of drowning. So you think you can come up with a deterrent to dissuade people who are already willing to risk their life to make the crossing. Or is it, as I suspect, you haven’t thought this through?!

Because all of the Tory policies were doomed to fail, as indeed they did.

Counter factual nonsense. The reason people try to cross the channel in rubber boats is because the Tories closed almost all safe routes and the means to apply for asylum prior to arrival near the origins countries. You can expect this to change. That aside, a problem the Tories couldn’t resolve and only made worse in 14 years. You’ve given Labour a week before you start your whinging.

There’s no such thing as a non-convicted felon. But then why let realty and facts interfere with your alternative universe.

"The only concerns expressed are for the criminals and not for the potential safety or security concerns of the British people." That's a rather bizarre interpretation of the letter's content. As it happened the High Court intervened on precisely the grounds the letter addresses. Perhaps someone in Government hadn't a clue what they were doing, doubling down when the clear faults in their plan were already pointed out to them.

If you have any posts from me whining about first past the post feel free to post them.

Welcome to First Past the Post and the whinging that occurs when it doesn’t go your way.

UK law permits entry to seek asylum. Nothing to do with Thailand.

What?

That’s not what the U.K. law says.

I’m guessing you aren’t in the receiving end of much hate mkmgering.

More self grievance stroking. Is your life really shackled by not being able to engage in hate mongering without the consequences being reserved for the targets of your hatred?

Clearly it isn’t and clearly it didn’t work.

This is the same China shipping weapons to assist Putin in his illegal invasion of Ukraine?

A reminder to our Republican friends. There is no Cult of Biden. And to the more rabid amongst them, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion are strengths.

I don’t think any politician in any liberal democracy expects to be treated politely by Donald Trump. He reserves his respect and politeness for dictators, tyrants and America’s enemies.

Moreover, if anyone really believes the UK is under threat of becoming a theocracy l, they too should back the rule of law with the Government answerable to the law. But of course that requires a bit of thinking beyond the current emotive outrage.

I see my point 4 has come into effect earlier than expected.

I expect four outcomes: Some claims will be approved and the claimants moved into the community, allowed to work, keep themselves and pay taxes. Some claims will be rejected and the claimants deported. The above two outcomes will reduce the number of people being kept at tax payer's expense. The rightwing will continue to bleat.

Or maybe just the law.

Hardly a surprise, Sunak's 'Stop the Boats' pledge was a hollow lie. Labour have been in power a week, give them chance to act before criticising them with the obvious outcomes of the previous government's failings.

Where is your evidence that this had any bearing at all upon the high court ruling that cancelled the deportations?