Pickwick

I wish you would read what I write, instead of lazily trying to nitpick. I wrote exactly this: ' parliament would be granted the right to declare Rwanda a safe country - even if there was concrete evidence to suggest otherwise'. The Supreme Court ruled that Rwanda was not safe. This bill was to try and circumvent the democratic processes of the UK. If this had been attempted by a Labour government Asean Now would be broken in an explosion of apoplectic rage.

Thank you for pointing out my typo. To confirm - the Rwanda plan had the capacity to process 200 people a year, as I have wrote numerous times.

George Galloway is not the most credible source you could have chosen. The Royal Navy does not have an infinite supply of ships on provocative offensive manoeuvres. I suppose we could cede the Falkland Islands to Argentina and Gibraltar to Spain and free up some resources, though I can't recall an appetite for that. The Royal Navy and the Ministry of Defence have said patrolling the channel is not feasible anyway. They do not go into detail but do mention a 'variety of reasons'. We can assume adherence to SOLAS and UNCLOS. You would have to ask them to clarify.

I am not sure of your point here. The main thrust of this bill was that parliament would be granted the right to declare Rwanda a safe country - even if there was concrete evidence to suggest otherwise. It says if the facts are not convenient we will change them. Now that parliament has a significant Labour majority, I'd imagine no Conservative (or free thinking British citizen of any political persuasion) wants the government to be able to 'change the facts' with no accountability or consequence. (Though it seems some were ok with this when there was a right-wing government.)

No he wasn't, he repeated information from the Court of Appeal and according to your link It appears the information was out of date. I have no idea if he knew the information was out of date or not. I do know that politicians of all colours, including the rosette of Reform, like to embellish the truth, some more so than others. Your link also talks about Rwanda having the capacity to process 100 people a year (which the Court of Appeal stated). This was subsequently increased to 200 - which is exactly what I wrote. You can easily find reports, from multiple sources about this, including the right wing media, but they write 1000 in 5 years, presumably because they think 1000 sounds more and people can't do the maths. Dominic Raab (Conservative Deputy Prime Minister) admitted the amount of people processed in Rwanda would be 'hundreds, not thousands', So, for £340,000,000 Rwanda would have taken two days' worth of small boats in 5 years. (Actually, after Rwanda processed the first 300 people an additional £120,000,000 would be due.) I understand some people are seduced by third party or offshore processing of asylum seekers but the reality is it costs more. The Home Office itself wrote in the official impact statement of operation costs that the plan is more expensive per asylum seeker - to the tune of an additional £63,000 per person per year (independent modelling suggests double that cost). Few people processed but at a higher cost. Take 200 asylum seekers out of the Premier Inn and put them in the Hilton. It's not a good plan, I think. I have stated in my previous reply that we have a real and complex problem. Expensive gimmicks are not the solution - quite the opposite I'd argue.

The country is also bound by international law. There has been much noise about leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, but that is a complex issue and not at all straightforward. The Human Rights Act would need to be repealed and UK citizens would lose a whole host of protections for themselves - the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to a fair trial etc (as would potential investors in the country). We would have to join Russia and Belarus as the only European countries barred from the Council of Europe. Our trade agreement with the EU would be gone, and our international standing would be reduced. It would contravene the Good Friday Agreement and our relationship with Ireland and the US would deteriorate. It would also most likely not stop the boats. The UK is bound by other acts and conventions, such as the UN Refugee Convention etc. and refoulement is also not permitted under domestic UK law, so the UK couldn't just send people back to countries willy-nilly. I suppose we would have removed the right to life... This is a complex issue that requires hard work and strong international effort - not hollow soundbites and expensive gimmicks. It is a hugely complex problem, and if you think it can be solved in 48 hours you have certainly 'not thought this through' and I would suggest you have not understood the problem. I note that President Macron thinks part of the reason the UK is targeted is the lack of ID cards - that once on land you can disappear quite easily in the UK with no formal ID requirements. I am not sure, though I suppose the criminal gangs will have subsequent networks and criminal alliances within the UK to facilitate this.

Given that the Rwanda plan had the capacity to process 200 people a year, I very much doubt they would find themselves in Rwanda the next day. A rather expensive gimmick.

You keep mentioning Australia - I assume because on the surface it looks like they are 'stopping the boats' and stopping the 'invasion of asylum seekers' (Braverman). Except, when you dig into the data it is not so neat and tidy. Firstly, there are obvious differences to note between Australia and the UK. The Timor Sea is not the English channel. The Royal Navy has also said it is not feasible for them to patrol the channel for a variety of reasons - please note I am not a serving member of the Royal Navy, you will have to ask them why. One of the main issues with illegal immigrants is that they get accommodation in hotels, food, cash, free healthcare etc - ie the cost. It is estimated that for every person Australia relocates offshore it costs around £200,000 a year. Again, that's for each person. They have also paid between one quarter and half a billion gbp to the offshore islands to process these people and at least £70 million to people their own courts had found were treated inhumanely and against agreed international standards. Also, much like Rwanda, they did not have the capacity to deal with this for the first few years. What did they do? They took 30,000 of them to Australia to process them. As of 2022 (the last time I can find figures and subsequently reported in the Sydney Morning Herald) there was a backlog inside Australia of 130,000 asylum seekers (more than the UK), which includes the 30,000 legacy from the stop the boats campaign. You also mentioned 'the only deterrent has been removed' in a previous post, which I assume to be the Rwanda plan - please correct me if I am wrong. Some people think this was a gimmick (me included), others think it is a viable solution - but the following point is very important: the Rwanda plan had the capacity to process 200 people a year. So, it could clear one Monday morning every year. How anyone can think this remotely tackles the problem is beyond me. Additionally, the cost has - and would have continued to be - astronomical. I have tried very hard to understand this but I must admit failure. I have, however, noticed a shift in the narrative on here since Thursday 4th July. While the blame for everything is still placed on lazy and weakly formulated labels like 'liberal loonies, lefties and wokeflakes', now Labour are being held to account for the failures of the Tories because the Tories are not actually Tories and are in fact Labour in disguise. It's comical. You claim to detest the Tories, yet your posts display a disproportionate amount of opprobrium for the new government.

The Tories had a majority in parliament. It's a surprise that you are blaming Labour (both in opposition and government) for the Tories failures. No you wouldn't. Your use of hyperbole makes it difficult to know if you are serious or not. If you are, blaming the opposition for the problem - then blaming the government once that opposition is elected - is a little lopsided and indicates a strong personal bias.

Do you expect them to fix the problem in one week - a problem which took the Tory government years to create? Your comments are unreasonable and unrealistic.

Which is a completely different topic to that which we were discussing.

A million miles? Can you tell that to Reform's Noel Matthews then please?

That's just not true. Thailand hosts 90,000 refugees, mainly from Myanmar (and estimates there to be 1.2 million illegal immigrants). Also, according to the UNHCR, there are 480,000 persons in Thailand registered as stateless. I am not sure if this figure is accurate or not, however.

I am not sure which part you do not understand. Freedom comes with a responsibility to the laws of the land. This has always been the case. No one is being arrested for saying 'rude words or insulting others'. The Public Order Act - which came in to existence during the tenure of Margaret Thatcher - was amended in 2014 to remove the word 'insulting' not add it. That was during Theresa May's tenure as Home Secretary. That you are writing this opinion in a thread about a member of the new Labour government, it might be prudent to repeat '1986', 'Theresa May' and 'Margaret Thatcher'. If you believe they are responsible for eroding your freedoms, then that's your opinion but I disagree and don't see it in the laws. Lawfare? You mean like Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation - which cross-party MPs called 'lawfare' in a 2022 parliamentary debate stating 'they cause a chilling effect on freedom of expression'. The legislation used by wealthy people, including the former chair of the Tory Party Nadhim Zawahi, who tried to hide the fact he was under Serious Fraud Squad investigations over his tax declarations (subsequently having to pay a £5 million fine over what he called a 'careless mistake')?

When specific groups have been historically treated appallingly because of the colour of their skin or sexual orientation etc. - hanged by the neck from trees; thrown of the roofs of tall buildings; and assaulted and murdered (still) in 'civilised' societies, I think robust laws to protect them are reasonable. That we need to have clear and open dialogue about what constitutes a hate crime is not in doubt (which is why the word 'insulting' was actually removed from the Public Order Act in 2014) - but opposition to such laws is rarely reasonable and often contains small digs at these groups, which betrays the underlying reasons for the critique. Freedom of speech is protected under the above mentioned Public Order Act. Freedom of Expression is also guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights (which I am sure will surprise some on here), and as far as I am aware is still existent post-Brexit. Freedom of Speech does carry a burden of responsibility in the eyes of the law(s) (laws which came into being under both left and right wing governments). Examples of restrictions would be disseminating materials that could encourage acts of terrorism, language that incites hatred on the ground of race, religion or sexual orientation and indecent messages or threats to an individual or group.

You are taking one part of the law and misrepresenting the whole. The law is not about choosing your gender every year, that's frankly ridiculous. It's an attempt to try and stop people - who are not transgender - trying to make a mockery of the system. You can absolutely choose to voice concern against self-determination gender policies - no-one, except a minority of radical activists, is denying there are valid concerns - but the desperate need to misrepresent things on this thread indicates a lack of serious thought and a lot of individual prejudice.

It's true that the UK is ranked only as 'partially open or free' by the Index on Censorship - though I am not sure how robust their data are. This has nothing to do with 'hate crime', though - which is the persecution of someone for the colour of their skin (majority of hate crime), sexual orientation etc. They highlight the erosion of freedom under the last right-wing government - notably Nadhim Zahawi's (then chair of the Tory Party) use of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation to try and silence journalists. Or Conservative Home Secretary Suella Braverman (who was ruled in the High Court to have acted unlawfully) by trying to curb the right to peaceful protest. That you ignore these real erosions of liberty and focus on minority groups is bizarre, unless you have some existing prejudice against these groups. There were 145,000 reported hate crimes in England Wales last year. There were 12,500 convictions. 0.019% of the population. There were three times more convictions for people being abused because of a physical disability than for transphobic crimes. The Hate Crime laws are not being used to erode your freedom, they are being used as a convenient deflection from the real issues.

Well, yes. They would have also risked prison time and being brutally murdered. The latter, of course, still happens in the UK (and elsewhere). Which part of the UK are you from? I have never, not once, had a trans person try to convince me to be trans.

It was an entirely democratic election. Everyone knew the system before the election, as we have been using it for 74 years. The majority of those years were under a Conservative government who opposed any change. I assume the people who voted Tory before defecting to Reform knew this. Odd, too, that those Reform supporters never mentioned it until after the election. And the ire directed at the Liberals - the only party to consistently campaign to change the system - is risible. You might not like the system but Labour won the election in the same way every other party has won the election since 1950.

Your expectations are unrealistic. Not to mention logistically impossible in a 5 year time frame.

Well that's a valid point but we were discussing intelligence, not politeness. It should also be noted that he was reacting to what Donald Trump said about London. You can disagree with his reaction (and I said I wouldn't have chosen the same words) but the implication that Lammy was just throwing insults around is not accurate.

Hold on. This is a cross-party letter, so not Labour, first mistake. They cite legal concerns after the Windrush scandal and do not mention wanting to keep criminals in the UK. Second mistake. Furthermore, they ask that the government publish 'The Lessons Learned Review' (which they had at the time of the letter) and to suspend all flights until it had been read by parliament. Third mistake. Finally, they ask the government to follow the recommendations of Sir Stephen Shaw that long term British residents who had been in the UK since childhood should not be subject to automatic deportation - Sir Stephen Shaw - a man who was appointed for the role by the right-wing Prime Minister Theresa May and approved by the Tory government in 2015. Lo and behold the reality once more sounds very different from the low-level journalism.

I quite agree, but people are blaming Labour for a Tory problem, which is not the same thing (the backlog, of course the overall problem is not party specific, which is again the point). A refreshing and welcome point of view.

Can you show me the letter he signed (serious request); I can only find vague reference in publications that are famed for right-wing bias or shoddy journalistic standards. From what I read it seemed he was concerned about due legal process and not with saving convicted criminals per se, though granted that doesn't sound as shocking and would probably not sell much copy at the newsagents. Let me be clear: I am all for deporting foreign criminals as quickly as possible; I am however, aware of the history and consequences of rounding up people without fair trial and following the law. I - like all on here who have commented on this point - have no specific details of this, and will reserve judgement until I see them. I will say unequivocally that I believe that the UK should remain a democratic country based on the rule of law.

If this is true then it is wokeness aided and abetted by a 14 year long right-wing Tory government (a government some on here voted for, yet blame everything on anyone who didn't). If the Tories are culpable then so are those who kept them in power for so long.