Chomper Higgot

Look in a mirror: The Bishop of Chelmsford told MPs she queried Rev Firth's claims. "The figures don't quite add up to me," the Right Reverend Guli Francis-Dehqani said. She added: "I have spoken to clergy who have turned people down [for baptism] because they did not feel they met the criteria." The clergy took baptisms very seriously, she said.

Fabricated nonsense.

Right so they stopped crossing just as the Tories were getting kicked out of Government. The failed Rwanda asylum seeker exchange scam had been in place for months, the failed Tory Government already been detaining asylum seekers in pretense that they were going to be deported, none of that stopped the boats. There were already over 100,000 asylum seekers in the UK being kept at tax payer expense because the Tories had failed to clear their applications. ———- Those people are now having their applications processed. Labour addressing a Tory failure. That’s what this news item is about.

There is no ‘Guaranteed asylum’. You are making stuff up. And the Rwanda plan did not stop people crossing the channel.

I asked did you check the weather. The weather is a factor in small boats crossing/not crossing, always has been. Of course it could be that in a matter of a couple of days people heard the news of Labour cancelling the failure Rwanda asylum seeker exchange scam and dashed across the globe to jump into small boats. If you don’t want to accept that weather is the more far more likely cause, go with the ridiculous.

It’s as it always has been, a significant problem for anyone wishing to cross the channel in a small boat. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68216757.amp

Did you check the weather?

Precisely the kind of intelligence and security cooperation someone has stated he wished to put an end to.

Correct, its a problem created by the Tories that Labour now need to sort out. And they are on it.

I wonder who this would benefit?

So Ukraine isn’t a European nation and the illegal military invasion of Ukraine isn’t a matter of concern for other European nations that happen to be nato Members. Or do you not understand what constitutes facts?!

The Government passed a bill that declares Rwanda a safe location to processes asylum seekers. So a bill passed in the UK Parliament makes Rwanda safe?

You should perhaps refrain from calling people liars when they make statements back by what the Home Office have said: ”The Home Office has said Rwanda has an initial capacity to take 200 people a year, but there are plans to increase that number when the scheme begins.” https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-67656220.amp

No please don’t.

You need to put more effort into working it out. When a Government passes a law, the new law can’t breach existing laws, otherwise it gets struck down by the courts. Sometimes members of the opposition write letters to the Government explaining they should halt process under new laws where there are clear indications of conflict with existing laws. A wise Government listens to such advice. The idiots that just got handed their backsides failed to do so. It’s not the fault of those who noticed and pointed out the problems.

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.