Best Of

"Home Office limits ‘one in, one out’ migrant deal with France

Officials fear the border scheme to effectively trade small boat arrivals for asylum seekers brings in ‘young men more likely to engage in criminal activity’"

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/france-home-office-border-policy-8ktl9lf0j

I was in Farnham last night for a meal with my wife.

I don't want to profile and at the same time two noisy motorbikes turned up suddenly on the high street outside our restaurant with two middle-eastern looking men on each of them, wearing bandanas covering their faces, and they had dark hair. They looked angry.

They did an about turn in the middle of the high-street, made a massive noise with their engines, and then revved off again. All my red flags were going off and I was ready to whip my wife out the restaurant on the high street, and head off out and away from there.

In the event nothing (that I could see) happened but it was all very weird and discomforting. Whole thing was about 8 seconds long and a flash in a pan. But where had they come from suddenly? Why were they there? What were they doing?

Maybe they just wanted a ride.

A free ride ?

That’s our strength and what makes Britain what it is. They’re the people who built this country

It's telling that I've been hesitant to report it to the police, and "hoping" other had instead.

They would ask me to describe the individuals involved, and give me own details, and there's too much risk of me being labelled a racist.

What would you be reporting to the police? Two guys revved their engines loudly? Is that a crime?

I thought your post was a parody initially, it’s so ridiculous.

FPT…

I hadn't noticed this detail.

few will appreciate how grimly funny it is that this judge both issued a gagging order so that the filton 4 could not explain their motivation to the jury, and then also sentenced them according to a specific intent provision requiring them to have had a specific motivation
https://x.com/ergo_praxis/status/2066049704811491467

I sympathise with the judge who has a problem. he has to act according to law, whatever his personal views. The defendants clearly don't think the law should apply to them.

There is a middle position: The government is wrong to extend terrorism to obviously non terrorist acts; and the defendants are wrong to try to get off a criminal charge by running a defence about motivation which in law isn't one.

The judge was right to stop them trying to do so, and is bound by law in the sentencing process to take motive into account. Motivation goes to mitigation/aggravation of an offence, not guilt.

Extending our traditional freedoms to protest to mean including breaking the law in serious ways a is a dangerous step, with fascistic overtones.

Finally, if the judge has got it wrong they can appeal.

I’m not disagreeing with everything you say there, but I wish to dispute the notion that protest that involves breaking the law has fascistic overtones. This country has a long tradition of protest that involves breaking the law, as do other Anglophone nations like the US.

The Suffragettes get mentioned often, but better examples include the Tolpuddle martyrs, the early years of trade unionism, some of the civil rights marches in Northern Ireland, helping slaves to escape, etc.

Except that causing lifechanging injuries to a police officer and £1m of damage to a private company, for a political cause, isn’t protesting it’s terrorism.