The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
Was the Rwanda plan in the manifesto?
If not then it will fall possibly at the HoL stage.
Which will probably prompt Johnson to come up with some batty scheme for HoL reform which will be quietly dropped as the GE gets underway.
No idea and nor do I care manifesto's are like toilet paper after use. Full of shit
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
If you are arrested on a terrorist offence for example I believe you can currently be held incommunicado without a lawyer for an extended period and even when they finally grant you access to a lawyer he is not allowed to see the evidence against you.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
Of course, this policy is also pretty racist. The implication is that Rwanda is some hellhole that asylum seekers will do anything to avoid.
Yes, part of the charmlessness of this pantomime will be the sight of the government ignoring the racist element of the policy, and its opponents ignoring the racist aspect of saying that Rwanda is unsuitable.
I suppose you have to ask why Rwanda. Why not Rotterdam. Or Romford.
The theory seems to be that if they are awaiting processing in the UK then they will abscond because we don't lock people up while the process is ongoing.
In Rwanda, meanwhile we presumably don't care if they abscond. And legal or otherwise their "prize" will be the freedom of Rwanda.
Boris Johnson said (BBC) that those who come to the UK "will be taken not to hotels at vast public expense" but instead would be housed in detention centres. So they are going to be locked up. So if they are going to be locked up why not lock them up in the UK rather than Uganda, process them, and then deport the unsuccessful ones to Uganda if that's the aim.
Good afternoon from Luton airport. The Good News is that despite the Easter getaway the airport is as super-efficient as ever getting me through security. However, the bad news is that having been so quick I am here early.
The whole point in this commute to London thing is to have minimal dwell times at airports. Ah well. Paid £lots to get a seat and a sandwich in Pret.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
If you are arrested on a terrorist offence for example I believe you can currently be held incommunicado without a lawyer for an extended period and even when they finally grant you access to a lawyer he is not allowed to see the evidence against you.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
Of course, this policy is also pretty racist. The implication is that Rwanda is some hellhole that asylum seekers will do anything to avoid.
Paying an impoverished African country to take in refugees who wanted to come here, to me this feels colonial and therefore wrong. I think I'd feel the same even if the details were thought out. As it is, I'm afraid it's a real bottom drawer, low rent affair and the wait goes on for this Boris Johnson government to surprise on the upside.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
If you are arrested on a terrorist offence for example I believe you can currently be held incommunicado without a lawyer for an extended period and even when they finally grant you access to a lawyer he is not allowed to see the evidence against you.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
Of course, this policy is also pretty racist. The implication is that Rwanda is some hellhole that asylum seekers will do anything to avoid.
Yes, part of the charmlessness of this pantomime will be the sight of the government ignoring the racist element of the policy, and its opponents ignoring the racist aspect of saying that Rwanda is unsuitable.
I suppose you have to ask why Rwanda. Why not Rotterdam. Or Romford.
The theory seems to be that if they are awaiting processing in the UK then they will abscond because we don't lock people up while the process is ongoing.
In Rwanda, meanwhile we presumably don't care if they abscond. And legal or otherwise their "prize" will be the freedom of Rwanda.
Boris Johnson said (BBC) that those who come to the UK "will be taken not to hotels at vast public expense" but instead would be housed in detention centres. So they are going to be locked up. So if they are going to be locked up why not lock them up in the UK rather than Uganda, process them, and then deport the unsuccessful ones to Uganda if that's the aim.
How much does it cost to put them in a detention centre here per week compared to putting them in a detention centre in Rwanda....even if you make the experience in both the same in terms of amenities I suspect Rwanda would be an order of magnitude cheaper. Plus the thought of all the immigration lawyers having to goto rwanda to attend hearings is a plus
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
If you are arrested on a terrorist offence for example I believe you can currently be held incommunicado without a lawyer for an extended period and even when they finally grant you access to a lawyer he is not allowed to see the evidence against you.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
Of course, this policy is also pretty racist. The implication is that Rwanda is some hellhole that asylum seekers will do anything to avoid.
Yes, part of the charmlessness of this pantomime will be the sight of the government ignoring the racist element of the policy, and its opponents ignoring the racist aspect of saying that Rwanda is unsuitable.
I suppose you have to ask why Rwanda. Why not Rotterdam. Or Romford.
The theory seems to be that if they are awaiting processing in the UK then they will abscond because we don't lock people up while the process is ongoing.
In Rwanda, meanwhile we presumably don't care if they abscond. And legal or otherwise their "prize" will be the freedom of Rwanda.
Boris Johnson said (BBC) that those who come to the UK "will be taken not to hotels at vast public expense" but instead would be housed in detention centres. So they are going to be locked up. So if they are going to be locked up why not lock them up in the UK rather than Uganda, process them, and then deport the unsuccessful ones to Uganda if that's the aim.
You are assuming they will be locked up. Or need to be.
If they attempt to fly to the UK from Rwanda, the airlines face stiff fines for someone arriving without correct documentation. Over land is quite a long walk.... To Libya, for example.
So there would be little need to have a fence at the centre in Rwanda.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
If you are arrested on a terrorist offence for example I believe you can currently be held incommunicado without a lawyer for an extended period and even when they finally grant you access to a lawyer he is not allowed to see the evidence against you.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
Of course, this policy is also pretty racist. The implication is that Rwanda is some hellhole that asylum seekers will do anything to avoid.
Yes, part of the charmlessness of this pantomime will be the sight of the government ignoring the racist element of the policy, and its opponents ignoring the racist aspect of saying that Rwanda is unsuitable.
The Govt is arguing that Rwanda is a lovely land, overflowing with opportunity, so there's no issue with sending people there; but also that the threat of going to Rwanda is so terrible, it will put people off trying to get into the UK. I'm not quite clear how both can be true.
The huge flaw in the Govt's scheme -- well, leaving aside the ethics, the law and the cost -- is that it only works if everyone currently getting on a boat knows this is the policy and believes it will apply to them. This seems highly unlikely.
Phillips P. OBrien @PhillipsPOBrien You know whose probably most affected by the sinking of the Moskva? I would say China. Another example of how this war is shaking up the strategic calculus and will, hopefully, make countries think twice about starting wars in the future.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
If you are arrested on a terrorist offence for example I believe you can currently be held incommunicado without a lawyer for an extended period and even when they finally grant you access to a lawyer he is not allowed to see the evidence against you.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
Of course, this policy is also pretty racist. The implication is that Rwanda is some hellhole that asylum seekers will do anything to avoid.
Yes, part of the charmlessness of this pantomime will be the sight of the government ignoring the racist element of the policy, and its opponents ignoring the racist aspect of saying that Rwanda is unsuitable.
The Govt is arguing that Rwanda is a lovely land, overflowing with opportunity, so there's no issue with sending people there; but also that the threat of going to Rwanda is so terrible, it will put people off trying to get into the UK. I'm not quite clear how both can be true.
The huge flaw in the Govt's scheme -- well, leaving aside the ethics, the law and the cost -- is that it only works if everyone currently getting on a boat knows this is the policy and believes it will apply to them. This seems highly unlikely.
It's actually Snakes and Ladders. Cross the Channel and destroy your ID documents and you go from square 98 to square 21.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
If you are arrested on a terrorist offence for example I believe you can currently be held incommunicado without a lawyer for an extended period and even when they finally grant you access to a lawyer he is not allowed to see the evidence against you.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
Of course, this policy is also pretty racist. The implication is that Rwanda is some hellhole that asylum seekers will do anything to avoid.
Yes, part of the charmlessness of this pantomime will be the sight of the government ignoring the racist element of the policy, and its opponents ignoring the racist aspect of saying that Rwanda is unsuitable.
The Govt is arguing that Rwanda is a lovely land, overflowing with opportunity, so there's no issue with sending people there; but also that the threat of going to Rwanda is so terrible, it will put people off trying to get into the UK. I'm not quite clear how both can be true.
The huge flaw in the Govt's scheme -- well, leaving aside the ethics, the law and the cost -- is that it only works if everyone currently getting on a boat knows this is the policy and believes it will apply to them. This seems highly unlikely.
Why does it seem highly unlikely? Australia implemented a similar strategy with offshore processing centres, word soon spread and boat migration fell like a stone.
I love a Man for All Seasons reference. In my view simply the best modern play by a distance, not least because of the exchange referred to. Studied it at school and became a lawyer as a result but I don't blame it. It just glamorised the role somewhat.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
If you are arrested on a terrorist offence for example I believe you can currently be held incommunicado without a lawyer for an extended period and even when they finally grant you access to a lawyer he is not allowed to see the evidence against you.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
Of course, this policy is also pretty racist. The implication is that Rwanda is some hellhole that asylum seekers will do anything to avoid.
Yes, part of the charmlessness of this pantomime will be the sight of the government ignoring the racist element of the policy, and its opponents ignoring the racist aspect of saying that Rwanda is unsuitable.
The Govt is arguing that Rwanda is a lovely land, overflowing with opportunity, so there's no issue with sending people there; but also that the threat of going to Rwanda is so terrible, it will put people off trying to get into the UK. I'm not quite clear how both can be true.
The huge flaw in the Govt's scheme -- well, leaving aside the ethics, the law and the cost -- is that it only works if everyone currently getting on a boat knows this is the policy and believes it will apply to them. This seems highly unlikely.
To be honest, debating any practicalities is pointless imho. The only purpose of the scheme, which will only ever happen in tiny scale, if at all, is to get some headlines before local elections. Mainly about reminding a certain section of Leave voters that they can trust Johnson's crew to deal with foreigners.
I love a Man for All Seasons reference. In my view simply the best modern play by a distance, not least because of the exchange referred to. Studied it at school and became a lawyer as a result but I don't blame it. It just glamorised the role somewhat.
Though in real life, Moore wasn't averse to cutting corners along as long as the accused were accused of being heretics.
On the slightly broader question we got told that Boris, his wife and his Chancellor got FPNs for his surprise birthday party. But surely almost all of the rest of the cabinet will have got them too? Which might go some way to explain their apparently irrational loyalty. And just might make Hunt a better bet than he has been to date.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
If you are arrested on a terrorist offence for example I believe you can currently be held incommunicado without a lawyer for an extended period and even when they finally grant you access to a lawyer he is not allowed to see the evidence against you.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
Of course, this policy is also pretty racist. The implication is that Rwanda is some hellhole that asylum seekers will do anything to avoid.
Yes, part of the charmlessness of this pantomime will be the sight of the government ignoring the racist element of the policy, and its opponents ignoring the racist aspect of saying that Rwanda is unsuitable.
I suppose you have to ask why Rwanda. Why not Rotterdam. Or Romford.
The theory seems to be that if they are awaiting processing in the UK then they will abscond because we don't lock people up while the process is ongoing.
In Rwanda, meanwhile we presumably don't care if they abscond. And legal or otherwise their "prize" will be the freedom of Rwanda.
Boris Johnson said (BBC) that those who come to the UK "will be taken not to hotels at vast public expense" but instead would be housed in detention centres. So they are going to be locked up. So if they are going to be locked up why not lock them up in the UK rather than Uganda, process them, and then deport the unsuccessful ones to Uganda if that's the aim.
How much does it cost to put them in a detention centre here per week compared to putting them in a detention centre in Rwanda....even if you make the experience in both the same in terms of amenities I suspect Rwanda would be an order of magnitude cheaper. Plus the thought of all the immigration lawyers having to goto rwanda to attend hearings is a plus
Sundar Katwala iirc worked out earlier that it cost the Australians £1.4m per refugee that they processed off-shore in their scheme.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
If you are arrested on a terrorist offence for example I believe you can currently be held incommunicado without a lawyer for an extended period and even when they finally grant you access to a lawyer he is not allowed to see the evidence against you.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
Of course, this policy is also pretty racist. The implication is that Rwanda is some hellhole that asylum seekers will do anything to avoid.
Yes, part of the charmlessness of this pantomime will be the sight of the government ignoring the racist element of the policy, and its opponents ignoring the racist aspect of saying that Rwanda is unsuitable.
The Govt is arguing that Rwanda is a lovely land, overflowing with opportunity, so there's no issue with sending people there; but also that the threat of going to Rwanda is so terrible, it will put people off trying to get into the UK. I'm not quite clear how both can be true.
The huge flaw in the Govt's scheme -- well, leaving aside the ethics, the law and the cost -- is that it only works if everyone currently getting on a boat knows this is the policy and believes it will apply to them. This seems highly unlikely.
Why does it seem highly unlikely? Australia implemented a similar strategy with offshore processing centres, word soon spread and boat migration fell like a stone.
The BBC reporter in Dunkirk said she'd told some of the people there what the plan was, so some already know, though would probably only make a difference once it actually starts happening.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
If you are arrested on a terrorist offence for example I believe you can currently be held incommunicado without a lawyer for an extended period and even when they finally grant you access to a lawyer he is not allowed to see the evidence against you.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
Of course, this policy is also pretty racist. The implication is that Rwanda is some hellhole that asylum seekers will do anything to avoid.
Yes, part of the charmlessness of this pantomime will be the sight of the government ignoring the racist element of the policy, and its opponents ignoring the racist aspect of saying that Rwanda is unsuitable.
The Govt is arguing that Rwanda is a lovely land, overflowing with opportunity, so there's no issue with sending people there; but also that the threat of going to Rwanda is so terrible, it will put people off trying to get into the UK. I'm not quite clear how both can be true.
The huge flaw in the Govt's scheme -- well, leaving aside the ethics, the law and the cost -- is that it only works if everyone currently getting on a boat knows this is the policy and believes it will apply to them. This seems highly unlikely.
I'm not sure its even that complex: 1. Many many Tory voters voted Brexit and Boris because they want fewer foreigners 2. Same voters baffled that not only have the forrin not left in large numbers but people keep coming in 3. Same just want them gone. Preferably somewhere awful. And think we should Take Back Control of our borders. Apparently they won't let us sink them, or shoot them. So send them to that place where they chopped each other up, that'll teach 'em.
It doesn't matter if the policy is legal, or practical, or costed, or stands even a hint of being implemented. All thats needed is a big press release, local Tories saying "how marvellous" and a nice photo of Patel smirking as she sticks a spade in the ground near Kigali. That she isn't building anything and the forrin won't be going to Rwanda isn't the objective.
Remind them what makes them really *really* mad. And thats people who aren't like them.
Breaking: Russia says Moskva 'still afloat' but Ukraine military claims warship started sinking when hit. Russia’s defence ministry has said the fire on board the warship Moskva, the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet, is “under control”.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
If you are arrested on a terrorist offence for example I believe you can currently be held incommunicado without a lawyer for an extended period and even when they finally grant you access to a lawyer he is not allowed to see the evidence against you.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
Of course, this policy is also pretty racist. The implication is that Rwanda is some hellhole that asylum seekers will do anything to avoid.
Yes, part of the charmlessness of this pantomime will be the sight of the government ignoring the racist element of the policy, and its opponents ignoring the racist aspect of saying that Rwanda is unsuitable.
The Govt is arguing that Rwanda is a lovely land, overflowing with opportunity, so there's no issue with sending people there; but also that the threat of going to Rwanda is so terrible, it will put people off trying to get into the UK. I'm not quite clear how both can be true.
The huge flaw in the Govt's scheme -- well, leaving aside the ethics, the law and the cost -- is that it only works if everyone currently getting on a boat knows this is the policy and believes it will apply to them. This seems highly unlikely.
"Before Team Boris showed up, Rwanda was a happy place. They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles!"
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
If you are arrested on a terrorist offence for example I believe you can currently be held incommunicado without a lawyer for an extended period and even when they finally grant you access to a lawyer he is not allowed to see the evidence against you.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
Of course, this policy is also pretty racist. The implication is that Rwanda is some hellhole that asylum seekers will do anything to avoid.
Yes, part of the charmlessness of this pantomime will be the sight of the government ignoring the racist element of the policy, and its opponents ignoring the racist aspect of saying that Rwanda is unsuitable.
The Govt is arguing that Rwanda is a lovely land, overflowing with opportunity, so there's no issue with sending people there; but also that the threat of going to Rwanda is so terrible, it will put people off trying to get into the UK. I'm not quite clear how both can be true.
The huge flaw in the Govt's scheme -- well, leaving aside the ethics, the law and the cost -- is that it only works if everyone currently getting on a boat knows this is the policy and believes it will apply to them. This seems highly unlikely.
I'm not sure its even that complex: 1. Many many Tory voters voted Brexit and Boris because they want fewer foreigners 2. Same voters baffled that not only have the forrin not left in large numbers but people keep coming in 3. Same just want them gone. Preferably somewhere awful. And think we should Take Back Control of our borders. Apparently they won't let us sink them, or shoot them. So send them to that place where they chopped each other up, that'll teach 'em.
It doesn't matter if the policy is legal, or practical, or costed, or stands even a hint of being implemented. All thats needed is a big press release, local Tories saying "how marvellous" and a nice photo of Patel smirking as she sticks a spade in the ground near Kigali. That she isn't building anything and the forrin won't be going to Rwanda isn't the objective.
Remind them what makes them really *really* mad. And thats people who aren't like them.
You missed out the bit where anger is subsequently transferred to the real Enemies of the People, ie those who blocked the (wonderful, silver bullet of a) proposal from being implemented: the Labour party, the House of Lords, and the judiciary.
I love a Man for All Seasons reference. In my view simply the best modern play by a distance, not least because of the exchange referred to. Studied it at school and became a lawyer as a result but I don't blame it. It just glamorised the role somewhat.
Though in real life, Moore wasn't averse to cutting corners along as long as the accused were accused of being heretics.
Of course, it is an idealised version of a man. But inspirational for all that.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
If you are arrested on a terrorist offence for example I believe you can currently be held incommunicado without a lawyer for an extended period and even when they finally grant you access to a lawyer he is not allowed to see the evidence against you.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
Of course, this policy is also pretty racist. The implication is that Rwanda is some hellhole that asylum seekers will do anything to avoid.
Yes, part of the charmlessness of this pantomime will be the sight of the government ignoring the racist element of the policy, and its opponents ignoring the racist aspect of saying that Rwanda is unsuitable.
I suppose you have to ask why Rwanda. Why not Rotterdam. Or Romford.
The theory seems to be that if they are awaiting processing in the UK then they will abscond because we don't lock people up while the process is ongoing.
In Rwanda, meanwhile we presumably don't care if they abscond. And legal or otherwise their "prize" will be the freedom of Rwanda.
Boris Johnson said (BBC) that those who come to the UK "will be taken not to hotels at vast public expense" but instead would be housed in detention centres. So they are going to be locked up. So if they are going to be locked up why not lock them up in the UK rather than Uganda, process them, and then deport the unsuccessful ones to Uganda if that's the aim.
How much does it cost to put them in a detention centre here per week compared to putting them in a detention centre in Rwanda....even if you make the experience in both the same in terms of amenities I suspect Rwanda would be an order of magnitude cheaper. Plus the thought of all the immigration lawyers having to goto rwanda to attend hearings is a plus
Sundar Katwala iirc worked out earlier that it cost the Australians £1.4m per refugee that they processed off-shore in their scheme.
Well while that seems costly you overlook something....it all depends on the numbers and no I dont know them however just to give you an example
if processing them on shore cost 2000 per week and you get 100,000 a year and average time is 2 years you get a cost of 100,000 x 104 x 2000 = 80,800,000,000
divide that by 1.4 million and you only need to drop numbers to 57,000 refugees to actually be ahead as 57,000 x 1.4 mill = 79,800,000,000
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
If you are arrested on a terrorist offence for example I believe you can currently be held incommunicado without a lawyer for an extended period and even when they finally grant you access to a lawyer he is not allowed to see the evidence against you.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
Of course, this policy is also pretty racist. The implication is that Rwanda is some hellhole that asylum seekers will do anything to avoid.
Yes, part of the charmlessness of this pantomime will be the sight of the government ignoring the racist element of the policy, and its opponents ignoring the racist aspect of saying that Rwanda is unsuitable.
I suppose you have to ask why Rwanda. Why not Rotterdam. Or Romford.
The theory seems to be that if they are awaiting processing in the UK then they will abscond because we don't lock people up while the process is ongoing.
In Rwanda, meanwhile we presumably don't care if they abscond. And legal or otherwise their "prize" will be the freedom of Rwanda.
Boris Johnson said (BBC) that those who come to the UK "will be taken not to hotels at vast public expense" but instead would be housed in detention centres. So they are going to be locked up. So if they are going to be locked up why not lock them up in the UK rather than Uganda, process them, and then deport the unsuccessful ones to Uganda if that's the aim.
"All these fit young foreign blokes - have you seen them? refugees my arse - who come for the easy life on our benefits, now they'll be shipped off instead to the middle of nowhere in Africa, that should sort it once and for all."
My sense is the policy is designed to achieve this response in their main target demographic - people who voted "Boris" rather than Tory at GE19 - and provided it does so, that's a result.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
If you are arrested on a terrorist offence for example I believe you can currently be held incommunicado without a lawyer for an extended period and even when they finally grant you access to a lawyer he is not allowed to see the evidence against you.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
Of course, this policy is also pretty racist. The implication is that Rwanda is some hellhole that asylum seekers will do anything to avoid.
Yes, part of the charmlessness of this pantomime will be the sight of the government ignoring the racist element of the policy, and its opponents ignoring the racist aspect of saying that Rwanda is unsuitable.
The Govt is arguing that Rwanda is a lovely land, overflowing with opportunity, so there's no issue with sending people there; but also that the threat of going to Rwanda is so terrible, it will put people off trying to get into the UK. I'm not quite clear how both can be true.
The huge flaw in the Govt's scheme -- well, leaving aside the ethics, the law and the cost -- is that it only works if everyone currently getting on a boat knows this is the policy and believes it will apply to them. This seems highly unlikely.
I'm not sure its even that complex: 1. Many many Tory voters voted Brexit and Boris because they want fewer foreigners 2. Same voters baffled that not only have the forrin not left in large numbers but people keep coming in 3. Same just want them gone. Preferably somewhere awful. And think we should Take Back Control of our borders. Apparently they won't let us sink them, or shoot them. So send them to that place where they chopped each other up, that'll teach 'em.
It doesn't matter if the policy is legal, or practical, or costed, or stands even a hint of being implemented. All thats needed is a big press release, local Tories saying "how marvellous" and a nice photo of Patel smirking as she sticks a spade in the ground near Kigali. That she isn't building anything and the forrin won't be going to Rwanda isn't the objective.
Remind them what makes them really *really* mad. And thats people who aren't like them.
Good afternoon from Luton airport. The Good News is that despite the Easter getaway the airport is as super-efficient as ever getting me through security. However, the bad news is that having been so quick I am here early.
The whole point in this commute to London thing is to have minimal dwell times at airports. Ah well. Paid £lots to get a seat and a sandwich in Pret.
I’ve done many flights from Luton in the past. Not been to the airport on a decade. I assume it’s not a great deal different to back then. You have my sympathies.
I love a Man for All Seasons reference. In my view simply the best modern play by a distance, not least because of the exchange referred to. Studied it at school and became a lawyer as a result but I don't blame it. It just glamorised the role somewhat.
' ...best modern play ... '
It was written over 60 years ago.
It is like saying Perry Como is the best modern singer.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
If you are arrested on a terrorist offence for example I believe you can currently be held incommunicado without a lawyer for an extended period and even when they finally grant you access to a lawyer he is not allowed to see the evidence against you.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
Of course, this policy is also pretty racist. The implication is that Rwanda is some hellhole that asylum seekers will do anything to avoid.
Yes, part of the charmlessness of this pantomime will be the sight of the government ignoring the racist element of the policy, and its opponents ignoring the racist aspect of saying that Rwanda is unsuitable.
The Govt is arguing that Rwanda is a lovely land, overflowing with opportunity, so there's no issue with sending people there; but also that the threat of going to Rwanda is so terrible, it will put people off trying to get into the UK. I'm not quite clear how both can be true.
The huge flaw in the Govt's scheme -- well, leaving aside the ethics, the law and the cost -- is that it only works if everyone currently getting on a boat knows this is the policy and believes it will apply to them. This seems highly unlikely.
I'm not sure its even that complex: 1. Many many Tory voters voted Brexit and Boris because they want fewer foreigners 2. Same voters baffled that not only have the forrin not left in large numbers but people keep coming in 3. Same just want them gone. Preferably somewhere awful. And think we should Take Back Control of our borders. Apparently they won't let us sink them, or shoot them. So send them to that place where they chopped each other up, that'll teach 'em.
It doesn't matter if the policy is legal, or practical, or costed, or stands even a hint of being implemented. All thats needed is a big press release, local Tories saying "how marvellous" and a nice photo of Patel smirking as she sticks a spade in the ground near Kigali. That she isn't building anything and the forrin won't be going to Rwanda isn't the objective.
Remind them what makes them really *really* mad. And thats people who aren't like them.
Oh, the irony of that last line.
Is this sort of like the lib dem tuition fees promise before they went into coalition?
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
If you are arrested on a terrorist offence for example I believe you can currently be held incommunicado without a lawyer for an extended period and even when they finally grant you access to a lawyer he is not allowed to see the evidence against you.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
Of course, this policy is also pretty racist. The implication is that Rwanda is some hellhole that asylum seekers will do anything to avoid.
Yes, part of the charmlessness of this pantomime will be the sight of the government ignoring the racist element of the policy, and its opponents ignoring the racist aspect of saying that Rwanda is unsuitable.
The Govt is arguing that Rwanda is a lovely land, overflowing with opportunity, so there's no issue with sending people there; but also that the threat of going to Rwanda is so terrible, it will put people off trying to get into the UK. I'm not quite clear how both can be true.
The huge flaw in the Govt's scheme -- well, leaving aside the ethics, the law and the cost -- is that it only works if everyone currently getting on a boat knows this is the policy and believes it will apply to them. This seems highly unlikely.
To be honest, debating any practicalities is pointless imho. The only purpose of the scheme, which will only ever happen in tiny scale, if at all, is to get some headlines before local elections. Mainly about reminding a certain section of Leave voters that they can trust Johnson's crew to deal with foreigners.
On those terms it will probably work.
Yeah had a taxi driver chuntering on about this the other day, it was like having someone reading the Daily Mail out loud. Ukrainian refugees are fine but not these other ones who are just on the take etc etc. I'm sure there is a rapt audience of mouth breathers who will absolutely love it. And it's already achieved its primary goal of distracting us from the fact that the PM is a liar and a law breaker who partied while the Queen sat alone at her husband's funeral and who in any normal functioning democracy would be out on his ear by now. Britain is shit, it is so sad.
An interesting article but let me put a counterpoint. Let's imagine two scenarios:
Scenario A - All rules are followed to the letter but the outcome is bad Scenario B - There is a great outcome but some rules were broken.
If you ask the public, which scenario they prefer I suspect most will say the second scenario is better. If you ask people in Westminster and many on here then they will prefer the first scenario
The problem is that our political class and media often focus on whether or not someone broke the rules rather than asking if the rules were any good.
Look at the event Boris and Rishi were fined for - we have created a scenario where someone was punished for eating a slice of cake. It's ridiculous. Of course, Boris can't say this as he made the stupid rules himself.
Cyclefree's argument seems to be that the law should never be broken but I would argue that some laws matter more than others. The root problems here are:
1) There are too many laws and regulations in this country, especially with the tendency towards performative lawmaking (e.g. the conversion therapy ban) 2) Many rules and laws are badly written and unclear (e.g. whether pubs could sell scotch eggs during COVID) 3) Often the rules become a shield to exonerate people when the outcomes are bad (e.g. expenses troughers who were "following the rules"
My concern if Boris goes is that he is one of the few politicians who is prepared to think out of the political box (e.g. vaccine taskforce). We could easily end up with another Theresa May who will be conventional and fail conventionally.
If you look at the last 10 years, there has been a trend towards outsider causes or candidates- Sindy, Brexit, Trump, Boris, Corbyn, Le Pen. Even Macron initially ran as an outsider.
This says to me that the real problem is that for too many the system isn't working and outcomes are bad.
When was the last time anyone was sacked for bad outcomes? Cressida Dick was pushed out, not because of how her force dealt with crime but because of concerns about racism.
I agree that sometimes people do bad things and hide behind "following the rules". We shouldn't only judge on whether someone has followed the letter of a law.
There may be too many laws in this country, I think you're right about performative lawmaking. However, every other PM (and Chancellor and PM's spouse) seemed to have no difficulty in sticking to them. We have to recognise the exceptional nature of what has happened.
It is also notable that these weren't old, obscure laws. These were laws that No. 10 had just instituted and were promulgating every day on the news and through social media. They can't claim ignorance.
I have a modicum of sympathy for Sunak in this regard. However, there are reported to be more fines down the track for Johnson, and there was clearly widespread and far more problematic rule-breaking by his staff going on under his nose, which he then misled Parliament about. It is not just a slice of cake.
Does Johnson think outside the box? I hardly think the vaccine taskforce was a stunningly inventive idea that no-one else would've thought of. Johnson didn't even think of it himself! It worked out well, but I don't think it excuses his otherwise very poor handling of the pandemic, let alone Partygate.
I love a Man for All Seasons reference. In my view simply the best modern play by a distance, not least because of the exchange referred to. Studied it at school and became a lawyer as a result but I don't blame it. It just glamorised the role somewhat.
' ...best modern play ... '
It was written over 60 years ago.
It is like saying Perry Como is the best modern singer.
When most of the canon studied at school comes from Shakespeare 60 years is not that long. It was really new when I studied at school, less than 20 years old!
The Rwanda gimmick consists of the UK government paying a foreign government extortionate amounts (probably billions not millions) to mistreat a small number of people so that it can make a political point.
That's all you need to know about it. There is no intention of it doing anything worthwhile apart that political point.
The Rwanda gimmick consists of the UK government paying a foreign government extortionate amounts (probably billions not millions) to mistreat a small number of people so that it can make a political point.
That's all you need to know about it. There is no intention of it doing anything worthwhile apart that political point.
You object to levelling up a poorer country? While I agree in the case of our current government it is probably intended to be performative. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good idea if done properly.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
If you are arrested on a terrorist offence for example I believe you can currently be held incommunicado without a lawyer for an extended period and even when they finally grant you access to a lawyer he is not allowed to see the evidence against you.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
Of course, this policy is also pretty racist. The implication is that Rwanda is some hellhole that asylum seekers will do anything to avoid.
Yes, part of the charmlessness of this pantomime will be the sight of the government ignoring the racist element of the policy, and its opponents ignoring the racist aspect of saying that Rwanda is unsuitable.
The Govt is arguing that Rwanda is a lovely land, overflowing with opportunity, so there's no issue with sending people there; but also that the threat of going to Rwanda is so terrible, it will put people off trying to get into the UK. I'm not quite clear how both can be true.
The huge flaw in the Govt's scheme -- well, leaving aside the ethics, the law and the cost -- is that it only works if everyone currently getting on a boat knows this is the policy and believes it will apply to them. This seems highly unlikely.
I'm not sure its even that complex: 1. Many many Tory voters voted Brexit and Boris because they want fewer foreigners 2. Same voters baffled that not only have the forrin not left in large numbers but people keep coming in 3. Same just want them gone. Preferably somewhere awful. And think we should Take Back Control of our borders. Apparently they won't let us sink them, or shoot them. So send them to that place where they chopped each other up, that'll teach 'em.
It doesn't matter if the policy is legal, or practical, or costed, or stands even a hint of being implemented. All thats needed is a big press release, local Tories saying "how marvellous" and a nice photo of Patel smirking as she sticks a spade in the ground near Kigali. That she isn't building anything and the forrin won't be going to Rwanda isn't the objective.
Remind them what makes them really *really* mad. And thats people who aren't like them.
You missed out the bit where anger is subsequently transferred to the real Enemies of the People, ie those who blocked the (wonderful, silver bullet of a) proposal from being implemented: the Labour party, the House of Lords, and the judiciary.
Ah yes. The plan was beautiful and flawless and would have worked had it not been for Starmer and Woke Lawyers and predatory blokes in frocks trying to molest our wives. Vote New Party.
Breaking: Russia says Moskva 'still afloat' but Ukraine military claims warship started sinking when hit. Russia’s defence ministry has said the fire on board the warship Moskva, the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet, is “under control”.
You would have thought in a world of satillite imagery this could be resolved relatively quickly.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
If you are arrested on a terrorist offence for example I believe you can currently be held incommunicado without a lawyer for an extended period and even when they finally grant you access to a lawyer he is not allowed to see the evidence against you.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
Of course, this policy is also pretty racist. The implication is that Rwanda is some hellhole that asylum seekers will do anything to avoid.
Yes, part of the charmlessness of this pantomime will be the sight of the government ignoring the racist element of the policy, and its opponents ignoring the racist aspect of saying that Rwanda is unsuitable.
The Govt is arguing that Rwanda is a lovely land, overflowing with opportunity, so there's no issue with sending people there; but also that the threat of going to Rwanda is so terrible, it will put people off trying to get into the UK. I'm not quite clear how both can be true.
The huge flaw in the Govt's scheme -- well, leaving aside the ethics, the law and the cost -- is that it only works if everyone currently getting on a boat knows this is the policy and believes it will apply to them. This seems highly unlikely.
I'm not sure its even that complex: 1. Many many Tory voters voted Brexit and Boris because they want fewer foreigners 2. Same voters baffled that not only have the forrin not left in large numbers but people keep coming in 3. Same just want them gone. Preferably somewhere awful. And think we should Take Back Control of our borders. Apparently they won't let us sink them, or shoot them. So send them to that place where they chopped each other up, that'll teach 'em.
It doesn't matter if the policy is legal, or practical, or costed, or stands even a hint of being implemented. All thats needed is a big press release, local Tories saying "how marvellous" and a nice photo of Patel smirking as she sticks a spade in the ground near Kigali. That she isn't building anything and the forrin won't be going to Rwanda isn't the objective.
Remind them what makes them really *really* mad. And thats people who aren't like them.
You missed out the bit where anger is subsequently transferred to the real Enemies of the People, ie those who blocked the (wonderful, silver bullet of a) proposal from being implemented: the Labour party, the House of Lords, and the judiciary.
Ah yes. The plan was beautiful and flawless and would have worked had it not been for Starmer and Woke Lawyers and predatory blokes in frocks trying to molest our wives. Vote New Party.
The people have only one enemy and its always the same enemy. It is the state and thats true regardless of who is in power
Hadn't really noticed him before but again, how can be in the cabinet? It would be annoying to find someone so vacuous on a school governors board.
Looks like he has been given the interview shift that used to belong to Williamson and Jenrick, i.e. the one that even Shapps can't be bothered to defend.
Used to be prominent in the Countryside Alliance. There are some curious incidents described in
Breaking: Russia says Moskva 'still afloat' but Ukraine military claims warship started sinking when hit. Russia’s defence ministry has said the fire on board the warship Moskva, the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet, is “under control”.
You would have thought in a world of satillite imagery this could be resolved relatively quickly.
If it is sinking the rising water would extinguish the fire thus putting the fire under control
Perhaps this scheme will persuade these refugees that they might be better of staying in France. I know they would have to put up with Macron or LePen but that might be preferable to Kwame.
Good afternoon from Luton airport. The Good News is that despite the Easter getaway the airport is as super-efficient as ever getting me through security. However, the bad news is that having been so quick I am here early.
The whole point in this commute to London thing is to have minimal dwell times at airports. Ah well. Paid £lots to get a seat and a sandwich in Pret.
I’ve done many flights from Luton in the past. Not been to the airport on a decade. I assume it’s not a great deal different to back then. You have my sympathies.
I like it a lot normally. Straight through security. A brief hold in the bullpen then to the gate which isn't that far. Much better than Gatwick where it is slow and the gate is far far away.
Remember that my normal purpose in the airport is to get on the plane in as little time as possible. I have zero interest in shops or food places and hanging round for hours. I want a security queue that moves and no queueing.
Aberdeen airport yesterday morning was amazing. From the car the first time I stopped was at the tray to decant your stuff into at security. And that was despite a load of people with kids heading off on holiday.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
If you are arrested on a terrorist offence for example I believe you can currently be held incommunicado without a lawyer for an extended period and even when they finally grant you access to a lawyer he is not allowed to see the evidence against you.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
Of course, this policy is also pretty racist. The implication is that Rwanda is some hellhole that asylum seekers will do anything to avoid.
Yes, part of the charmlessness of this pantomime will be the sight of the government ignoring the racist element of the policy, and its opponents ignoring the racist aspect of saying that Rwanda is unsuitable.
I suppose you have to ask why Rwanda. Why not Rotterdam. Or Romford.
The theory seems to be that if they are awaiting processing in the UK then they will abscond because we don't lock people up while the process is ongoing.
In Rwanda, meanwhile we presumably don't care if they abscond. And legal or otherwise their "prize" will be the freedom of Rwanda.
Boris Johnson said (BBC) that those who come to the UK "will be taken not to hotels at vast public expense" but instead would be housed in detention centres. So they are going to be locked up. So if they are going to be locked up why not lock them up in the UK rather than Uganda, process them, and then deport the unsuccessful ones to Uganda if that's the aim.
The Rwandans want the money and are happy to mistreat the asylum seekers. This will be extremely lucrative for them.
I love a Man for All Seasons reference. In my view simply the best modern play by a distance, not least because of the exchange referred to. Studied it at school and became a lawyer as a result but I don't blame it. It just glamorised the role somewhat.
' ...best modern play ... '
It was written over 60 years ago.
It is like saying Perry Como is the best modern singer.
When most of the canon studied at school comes from Shakespeare 60 years is not that long. It was really new when I studied at school, less than 20 years old!
Plus Modern Art started with Cezanne and arguably Courbet.
Good afternoon from Luton airport. The Good News is that despite the Easter getaway the airport is as super-efficient as ever getting me through security. However, the bad news is that having been so quick I am here early.
The whole point in this commute to London thing is to have minimal dwell times at airports. Ah well. Paid £lots to get a seat and a sandwich in Pret.
I’ve done many flights from Luton in the past. Not been to the airport on a decade. I assume it’s not a great deal different to back then. You have my sympathies.
The Rwanda gimmick consists of the UK government paying a foreign government extortionate amounts (probably billions not millions) to mistreat a small number of people so that it can make a political point.
That's all you need to know about it. There is no intention of it doing anything worthwhile apart that political point.
You object to levelling up a poorer country? While I agree in the case of our current government it is probably intended to be performative. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good idea if done properly.
"Levelling up" in this case is somewhat in the "Arbeit macht frei" category of spin for what is paid thuggery (at extortionate rates).
I have no objection to levelling up poorer countries. This isn't it.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
If you are arrested on a terrorist offence for example I believe you can currently be held incommunicado without a lawyer for an extended period and even when they finally grant you access to a lawyer he is not allowed to see the evidence against you.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
Of course, this policy is also pretty racist. The implication is that Rwanda is some hellhole that asylum seekers will do anything to avoid.
Yes, part of the charmlessness of this pantomime will be the sight of the government ignoring the racist element of the policy, and its opponents ignoring the racist aspect of saying that Rwanda is unsuitable.
The Govt is arguing that Rwanda is a lovely land, overflowing with opportunity, so there's no issue with sending people there; but also that the threat of going to Rwanda is so terrible, it will put people off trying to get into the UK. I'm not quite clear how both can be true.
The huge flaw in the Govt's scheme -- well, leaving aside the ethics, the law and the cost -- is that it only works if everyone currently getting on a boat knows this is the policy and believes it will apply to them. This seems highly unlikely.
I'm not sure its even that complex: 1. Many many Tory voters voted Brexit and Boris because they want fewer foreigners 2. Same voters baffled that not only have the forrin not left in large numbers but people keep coming in 3. Same just want them gone. Preferably somewhere awful. And think we should Take Back Control of our borders. Apparently they won't let us sink them, or shoot them. So send them to that place where they chopped each other up, that'll teach 'em.
It doesn't matter if the policy is legal, or practical, or costed, or stands even a hint of being implemented. All thats needed is a big press release, local Tories saying "how marvellous" and a nice photo of Patel smirking as she sticks a spade in the ground near Kigali. That she isn't building anything and the forrin won't be going to Rwanda isn't the objective.
Remind them what makes them really *really* mad. And thats people who aren't like them.
Iain Martin @iainmartin1 · 8h As @rcolvile says, Twitter is not the country and this new policy is likely to be quite popular, at least initially. But... it looks fraught with logistical difficulties. The idea the Home Office and Border Force can handle this well seems implausible...
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
If you are arrested on a terrorist offence for example I believe you can currently be held incommunicado without a lawyer for an extended period and even when they finally grant you access to a lawyer he is not allowed to see the evidence against you.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
Of course, this policy is also pretty racist. The implication is that Rwanda is some hellhole that asylum seekers will do anything to avoid.
Yes, part of the charmlessness of this pantomime will be the sight of the government ignoring the racist element of the policy, and its opponents ignoring the racist aspect of saying that Rwanda is unsuitable.
I suppose you have to ask why Rwanda. Why not Rotterdam. Or Romford.
The theory seems to be that if they are awaiting processing in the UK then they will abscond because we don't lock people up while the process is ongoing.
In Rwanda, meanwhile we presumably don't care if they abscond. And legal or otherwise their "prize" will be the freedom of Rwanda.
Boris Johnson said (BBC) that those who come to the UK "will be taken not to hotels at vast public expense" but instead would be housed in detention centres. So they are going to be locked up. So if they are going to be locked up why not lock them up in the UK rather than Uganda, process them, and then deport the unsuccessful ones to Uganda if that's the aim.
The Rwandans want the money and are happy to mistreat the asylum seekers. This will be extremely lucrative for them.
I've been wondering most of the day, whilst sitting about in Court, who that complete dipstick was on the Today program, allegedly a cabinet minister. It was Simon Hart, who I had in all honesty never heard of. Apparently SoS for Wales (which surely invites another Man for all Seasons reference).
The reasons that he might not have been let out on his own rapidly became apparent. The utter incoherence of his explanation of this Rwanda plan would have been deeply embarrassing had it not been for the utter drivel that followed when, inevitably, he was challenged about the PM's FPN.
Surely he will not be let out again. Just shocking. Surely even this government can do better than that.
Good afternoon from Luton airport. The Good News is that despite the Easter getaway the airport is as super-efficient as ever getting me through security. However, the bad news is that having been so quick I am here early.
The whole point in this commute to London thing is to have minimal dwell times at airports. Ah well. Paid £lots to get a seat and a sandwich in Pret.
I’ve done many flights from Luton in the past. Not been to the airport on a decade. I assume it’s not a great deal different to back then. You have my sympathies.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
If you are arrested on a terrorist offence for example I believe you can currently be held incommunicado without a lawyer for an extended period and even when they finally grant you access to a lawyer he is not allowed to see the evidence against you.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
Of course, this policy is also pretty racist. The implication is that Rwanda is some hellhole that asylum seekers will do anything to avoid.
Yes, part of the charmlessness of this pantomime will be the sight of the government ignoring the racist element of the policy, and its opponents ignoring the racist aspect of saying that Rwanda is unsuitable.
The Govt is arguing that Rwanda is a lovely land, overflowing with opportunity, so there's no issue with sending people there; but also that the threat of going to Rwanda is so terrible, it will put people off trying to get into the UK. I'm not quite clear how both can be true.
The huge flaw in the Govt's scheme -- well, leaving aside the ethics, the law and the cost -- is that it only works if everyone currently getting on a boat knows this is the policy and believes it will apply to them. This seems highly unlikely.
I'm not sure its even that complex: 1. Many many Tory voters voted Brexit and Boris because they want fewer foreigners 2. Same voters baffled that not only have the forrin not left in large numbers but people keep coming in 3. Same just want them gone. Preferably somewhere awful. And think we should Take Back Control of our borders. Apparently they won't let us sink them, or shoot them. So send them to that place where they chopped each other up, that'll teach 'em.
It doesn't matter if the policy is legal, or practical, or costed, or stands even a hint of being implemented. All thats needed is a big press release, local Tories saying "how marvellous" and a nice photo of Patel smirking as she sticks a spade in the ground near Kigali. That she isn't building anything and the forrin won't be going to Rwanda isn't the objective.
Remind them what makes them really *really* mad. And thats people who aren't like them.
You missed out the bit where anger is subsequently transferred to the real Enemies of the People, ie those who blocked the (wonderful, silver bullet of a) proposal from being implemented: the Labour party, the House of Lords, and the judiciary.
Ah yes. The plan was beautiful and flawless and would have worked had it not been for Starmer and Woke Lawyers and predatory blokes in frocks trying to molest our wives. Vote New Party.
Sadly - and it is genuinely sad - the government is almost 100% driven by culture war button pressing and this makes it hard for them to enact good policy.
The Rwanda gimmick consists of the UK government paying a foreign government extortionate amounts (probably billions not millions) to mistreat a small number of people so that it can make a political point.
That's all you need to know about it. There is no intention of it doing anything worthwhile apart that political point.
You object to levelling up a poorer country? While I agree in the case of our current government it is probably intended to be performative. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good idea if done properly.
"Levelling up" in this case is somewhat in the "Arbeit macht frei" category of spin for what is paid thuggery (at extortionate rates).
I have no objection to levelling up poorer countries. This isn't it.
There is no reason if we had detention camps in rwanda we couldn't have them under proper supervision and insist on the same sort of conditions as they would have in a detention centre in Kent. We don't have to let Rwandans exploit them as slave labour.
The Rwanda gimmick consists of the UK government paying a foreign government extortionate amounts (probably billions not millions) to mistreat a small number of people so that it can make a political point.
That's all you need to know about it. There is no intention of it doing anything worthwhile apart that political point.
You object to levelling up a poorer country? While I agree in the case of our current government it is probably intended to be performative. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good idea if done properly.
"Levelling up" in this case is somewhat in the "Arbeit macht frei" category of spin for what is paid thuggery (at extortionate rates).
I have no objection to levelling up poorer countries. This isn't it.
There is no reason if we had detention camps in rwanda we couldn't have them under proper supervision and insist on the same sort of conditions as they would have in a detention centre in Kent. We don't have to let Rwandans exploit them as slave labour.
And by the way who is being racist now assuming that the Rwandan's would? Is it because they are Rwandan?
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
If you are arrested on a terrorist offence for example I believe you can currently be held incommunicado without a lawyer for an extended period and even when they finally grant you access to a lawyer he is not allowed to see the evidence against you.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
Of course, this policy is also pretty racist. The implication is that Rwanda is some hellhole that asylum seekers will do anything to avoid.
Yes, part of the charmlessness of this pantomime will be the sight of the government ignoring the racist element of the policy, and its opponents ignoring the racist aspect of saying that Rwanda is unsuitable.
The Govt is arguing that Rwanda is a lovely land, overflowing with opportunity, so there's no issue with sending people there; but also that the threat of going to Rwanda is so terrible, it will put people off trying to get into the UK. I'm not quite clear how both can be true.
The huge flaw in the Govt's scheme -- well, leaving aside the ethics, the law and the cost -- is that it only works if everyone currently getting on a boat knows this is the policy and believes it will apply to them. This seems highly unlikely.
I'm not sure its even that complex: 1. Many many Tory voters voted Brexit and Boris because they want fewer foreigners 2. Same voters baffled that not only have the forrin not left in large numbers but people keep coming in 3. Same just want them gone. Preferably somewhere awful. And think we should Take Back Control of our borders. Apparently they won't let us sink them, or shoot them. So send them to that place where they chopped each other up, that'll teach 'em.
It doesn't matter if the policy is legal, or practical, or costed, or stands even a hint of being implemented. All thats needed is a big press release, local Tories saying "how marvellous" and a nice photo of Patel smirking as she sticks a spade in the ground near Kigali. That she isn't building anything and the forrin won't be going to Rwanda isn't the objective.
Remind them what makes them really *really* mad. And thats people who aren't like them.
Iain Martin @iainmartin1 · 8h As @rcolvile says, Twitter is not the country and this new policy is likely to be quite popular, at least initially. But... it looks fraught with logistical difficulties. The idea the Home Office and Border Force can handle this well seems implausible...
The good news is they don't have to. The forrin need to be rounded up. Processed. Interred. Inoculated. And finally expelled. That sounds like a whole stack of contracts that can be awarded to friends of the Conservative New Party.
And now that people have been conditioned to say "whats wrong with awarding £107m contracts without tender to companies founded 5 minutes ago by Tory donors / councillors / pub landlords" there is nothing to stop vast sums of public cash being trousered. And the public being robbed will applaud the thieves!!!
Good afternoon from Luton airport. The Good News is that despite the Easter getaway the airport is as super-efficient as ever getting me through security. However, the bad news is that having been so quick I am here early.
The whole point in this commute to London thing is to have minimal dwell times at airports. Ah well. Paid £lots to get a seat and a sandwich in Pret.
I’ve done many flights from Luton in the past. Not been to the airport on a decade. I assume it’s not a great deal different to back then. You have my sympathies.
I like it a lot normally. Straight through security. A brief hold in the bullpen then to the gate which isn't that far. Much better than Gatwick where it is slow and the gate is far far away.
Remember that my normal purpose in the airport is to get on the plane in as little time as possible. I have zero interest in shops or food places and hanging round for hours. I want a security queue that moves and no queueing.
Aberdeen airport yesterday morning was amazing. From the car the first time I stopped was at the tray to decant your stuff into at security. And that was despite a load of people with kids heading off on holiday.
Whenever I flew from there I was the same. Get in, get on the plane. It was usually easyJet to somewhere in Europe for business. Driving the other side meant no booze either.
Mind you when I flew it was in the days easyJet didn’t do pre booked seats, or if they did charged a tenner for them, and being tier 1 automotive would they pay, would they shite.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
If you are arrested on a terrorist offence for example I believe you can currently be held incommunicado without a lawyer for an extended period and even when they finally grant you access to a lawyer he is not allowed to see the evidence against you.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
Of course, this policy is also pretty racist. The implication is that Rwanda is some hellhole that asylum seekers will do anything to avoid.
No, the implication is that asylum seekers will *not* avoid it but economic migrants whose purpose is to use the asylum system as a way into the UK, will.
Hard to imagine a worse context for the government to fight a by election. Disgraced MP. Disgraced PM. Disgraced Chancellor. Economy heading down the toilet. Taxes up. Costs up. NHS on its knees. Future bleak.
Hard to imagine a worse context for the government to fight a by election. Disgraced MP. Disgraced PM. Disgraced Chancellor. Economy heading down the toilet. Taxes up. Costs up. Future worse.
It could be worse if Labour had a leader who was popular and had some policies, but probably not much.
I love a Man for All Seasons reference. In my view simply the best modern play by a distance, not least because of the exchange referred to. Studied it at school and became a lawyer as a result but I don't blame it. It just glamorised the role somewhat.
' ...best modern play ... '
It was written over 60 years ago.
It is like saying Perry Como is the best modern singer.
When most of the canon studied at school comes from Shakespeare 60 years is not that long. It was really new when I studied at school, less than 20 years old!
I read that as you being at school just before the Bishops' War ...
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
If you are arrested on a terrorist offence for example I believe you can currently be held incommunicado without a lawyer for an extended period and even when they finally grant you access to a lawyer he is not allowed to see the evidence against you.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
Of course, this policy is also pretty racist. The implication is that Rwanda is some hellhole that asylum seekers will do anything to avoid.
Yes, part of the charmlessness of this pantomime will be the sight of the government ignoring the racist element of the policy, and its opponents ignoring the racist aspect of saying that Rwanda is unsuitable.
The Govt is arguing that Rwanda is a lovely land, overflowing with opportunity, so there's no issue with sending people there; but also that the threat of going to Rwanda is so terrible, it will put people off trying to get into the UK. I'm not quite clear how both can be true.
The huge flaw in the Govt's scheme -- well, leaving aside the ethics, the law and the cost -- is that it only works if everyone currently getting on a boat knows this is the policy and believes it will apply to them. This seems highly unlikely.
You (and I am not singling you out personally, I mean everyone attacking this policy) are really struggling to find a chink in it, and it isn't working. Of course going to Rwanda will put off people who just want to settle in the UK - because its nowhere near the UK!
The Rwanda gimmick consists of the UK government paying a foreign government extortionate amounts (probably billions not millions) to mistreat a small number of people so that it can make a political point.
That's all you need to know about it. There is no intention of it doing anything worthwhile apart that political point.
You object to levelling up a poorer country? While I agree in the case of our current government it is probably intended to be performative. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good idea if done properly.
"Levelling up" in this case is somewhat in the "Arbeit macht frei" category of spin for what is paid thuggery (at extortionate rates).
I have no objection to levelling up poorer countries. This isn't it.
There is no reason if we had detention camps in rwanda we couldn't have them under proper supervision and insist on the same sort of conditions as they would have in a detention centre in Kent. We don't have to let Rwandans exploit them as slave labour.
Aha! Fallen into the trap - the same one Australia fell into with Nauru. So Rwanda is holding these asylum seekers. "Hmm... let charge the UK some more ... and more..." eventually charging £2.5 million per asylum seeker per year.
An interesting article but let me put a counterpoint. Let's imagine two scenarios:
Scenario A - All rules are followed to the letter but the outcome is bad Scenario B - There is a great outcome but some rules were broken.
If you ask the public, which scenario they prefer I suspect most will say the second scenario is better. If you ask people in Westminster and many on here then they will prefer the first scenario
The problem is that our political class and media often focus on whether or not someone broke the rules rather than asking if the rules were any good.
Look at the event Boris and Rishi were fined for - we have created a scenario where someone was punished for eating a slice of cake. It's ridiculous. Of course, Boris can't say this as he made the stupid rules himself.
Cyclefree's argument seems to be that the law should never be broken but I would argue that some laws matter more than others. The root problems here are:
1) There are too many laws and regulations in this country, especially with the tendency towards performative lawmaking (e.g. the conversion therapy ban) 2) Many rules and laws are badly written and unclear (e.g. whether pubs could sell scotch eggs during COVID) 3) Often the rules become a shield to exonerate people when the outcomes are bad (e.g. expenses troughers who were "following the rules"
My concern if Boris goes is that he is one of the few politicians who is prepared to think out of the political box (e.g. vaccine taskforce). We could easily end up with another Theresa May who will be conventional and fail conventionally.
If you look at the last 10 years, there has been a trend towards outsider causes or candidates- Sindy, Brexit, Trump, Boris, Corbyn, Le Pen. Even Macron initially ran as an outsider.
This says to me that the real problem is that for too many the system isn't working and outcomes are bad.
When was the last time anyone was sacked for bad outcomes? Cressida Dick was pushed out, not because of how her force dealt with crime but because of concerns about racism.
I agree that sometimes people do bad things and hide behind "following the rules". We shouldn't only judge on whether someone has followed the letter of a law.
There may be too many laws in this country, I think you're right about performative lawmaking. However, every other PM (and Chancellor and PM's spouse) seemed to have no difficulty in sticking to them. We have to recognise the exceptional nature of what has happened.
It is also notable that these weren't old, obscure laws. These were laws that No. 10 had just instituted and were promulgating every day on the news and through social media. They can't claim ignorance.
I have a modicum of sympathy for Sunak in this regard. However, there are reported to be more fines down the track for Johnson, and there was clearly widespread and far more problematic rule-breaking by his staff going on under his nose, which he then misled Parliament about. It is not just a slice of cake.
Does Johnson think outside the box? I hardly think the vaccine taskforce was a stunningly inventive idea that no-one else would've thought of. Johnson didn't even think of it himself! It worked out well, but I don't think it excuses his otherwise very poor handling of the pandemic, let alone Partygate.
Yep, Johnson and his supporters seek to frame this as essentially trivial - picking out the specific FPN for his brief birthday gathering and contrasting with his big serious PM calls (which were supposedly masterly) on things like the pandemic and Ukraine.
However - There was a pattern of Covid rule breaking at number 10 and by him. The rules broken were those he made and made a massive deal of instructing the nation to follow. He lied repeatedly to parliament about what went on. Just before this scandal broke he tried to abolish parliamentary scrutiny of standards. So it isn't trivial.
That said, there would be a validly tough decision for the Tory Party to make if Johnson really has been adding a lot of value to the process of governing the country. But as you say, he hasn't. His influence is neutral on a good day, negative otherwise, and there haven't been too many good days.
An interesting article but let me put a counterpoint. Let's imagine two scenarios:
Scenario A - All rules are followed to the letter but the outcome is bad Scenario B - There is a great outcome but some rules were broken.
If you ask the public, which scenario they prefer I suspect most will say the second scenario is better. If you ask people in Westminster and many on here then they will prefer the first scenario
The problem is that our political class and media often focus on whether or not someone broke the rules rather than asking if the rules were any good.
Look at the event Boris and Rishi were fined for - we have created a scenario where someone was punished for eating a slice of cake. It's ridiculous. Of course, Boris can't say this as he made the stupid rules himself.
Cyclefree's argument seems to be that the law should never be broken but I would argue that some laws matter more than others. The root problems here are:
1) There are too many laws and regulations in this country, especially with the tendency towards performative lawmaking (e.g. the conversion therapy ban) 2) Many rules and laws are badly written and unclear (e.g. whether pubs could sell scotch eggs during COVID) 3) Often the rules become a shield to exonerate people when the outcomes are bad (e.g. expenses troughers who were "following the rules"
My concern if Boris goes is that he is one of the few politicians who is prepared to think out of the political box (e.g. vaccine taskforce). We could easily end up with another Theresa May who will be conventional and fail conventionally.
If you look at the last 10 years, there has been a trend towards outsider causes or candidates- Sindy, Brexit, Trump, Boris, Corbyn, Le Pen. Even Macron initially ran as an outsider.
This says to me that the real problem is that for too many the system isn't working and outcomes are bad.
When was the last time anyone was sacked for bad outcomes? Cressida Dick was pushed out, not because of how her force dealt with crime but because of concerns about racism.
I agree that sometimes people do bad things and hide behind "following the rules". We shouldn't only judge on whether someone has followed the letter of a law.
There may be too many laws in this country, I think you're right about performative lawmaking. However, every other PM (and Chancellor and PM's spouse) seemed to have no difficulty in sticking to them. We have to recognise the exceptional nature of what has happened.
It is also notable that these weren't old, obscure laws. These were laws that No. 10 had just instituted and were promulgating every day on the news and through social media. They can't claim ignorance.
I have a modicum of sympathy for Sunak in this regard. However, there are reported to be more fines down the track for Johnson, and there was clearly widespread and far more problematic rule-breaking by his staff going on under his nose, which he then misled Parliament about. It is not just a slice of cake.
Does Johnson think outside the box? I hardly think the vaccine taskforce was a stunningly inventive idea that no-one else would've thought of. Johnson didn't even think of it himself! It worked out well, but I don't think it excuses his otherwise very poor handling of the pandemic, let alone Partygate.
Yep, Johnson and his supporters seek to frame this as essentially trivial - picking out the specific FPN for his brief birthday gathering and contrasting with his big serious PM calls (which were supposedly masterly) on things like the pandemic and Ukraine.
However - There was a pattern of Covid rule breaking at number 10 and by him. The rules broken were those he made and made a massive deal of instructing the nation to follow. He lied repeatedly to parliament about what went on. Just before this scandal broke he tried to abolish parliamentary scrutiny of standards. So it isn't trivial.
That said, there would be a validly tough decision for the Tory Party to make if Johnson really has been adding a lot of value to the process of governing the country. But as you say, he hasn't. His influence is neutral on a good day, negative otherwise, and there haven't been too many good days.
You are missing one big point @kinabalu and it’s one you raised yourself when the Bristol Colston protestors were found not guilty by the jury, namely that people don’t view the law as prescriptive is “if you do this, you automatically get that” but one that is subject to nuance.
Yes, you may view BJ are resigning over the FPN as an automatic given but most would recognise (1) your view is biased that your politics (I’m sure SKS did a similar thing, you would come up with 101 reasons why he wasn’t guilty) and (2) that he was not convicted by a jury (arguably, if it was up to the Police alone, your Colaton friends would have been found similarly guilty).
I really don’t care much for BJ one way or the other but this whole “he’s been fined, he’s got to go” being pushed by a side who would move Heaven and Earth to justify their own side in a similar circumstance is just bollocks.
@Dura had it right. It is just a giant elephant trap for Lab and Lab are almost sure to fall into it.
Of course it is, and Labour will fall into it as they did with the trans issue. SKS may recognise the danger but he will need to respond in a ‘suitable’ way
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
If you are arrested on a terrorist offence for example I believe you can currently be held incommunicado without a lawyer for an extended period and even when they finally grant you access to a lawyer he is not allowed to see the evidence against you.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
Of course, this policy is also pretty racist. The implication is that Rwanda is some hellhole that asylum seekers will do anything to avoid.
Yes, part of the charmlessness of this pantomime will be the sight of the government ignoring the racist element of the policy, and its opponents ignoring the racist aspect of saying that Rwanda is unsuitable.
The Govt is arguing that Rwanda is a lovely land, overflowing with opportunity, so there's no issue with sending people there; but also that the threat of going to Rwanda is so terrible, it will put people off trying to get into the UK. I'm not quite clear how both can be true.
The huge flaw in the Govt's scheme -- well, leaving aside the ethics, the law and the cost -- is that it only works if everyone currently getting on a boat knows this is the policy and believes it will apply to them. This seems highly unlikely.
Why does it seem highly unlikely? Australia implemented a similar strategy with offshore processing centres, word soon spread and boat migration fell like a stone.
As I understand it, no! People are still setting off in boats. They're not reaching Australia's beaches because they're intercepted, but they're still risking their lives. (And Australia has a much wider gap of sea in which to do the intercepting.) Boris says the Govt's Rwanda policy will stop people getting into boats.
Meanwhile, Australia's illegal immigration rates are basically unaffected because most illegal immigrants get in by overstaying visas, not by getting on a boat.
Comments
The theory seems to be that if they are awaiting processing in the UK then they will abscond because we don't lock people up while the process is ongoing.
In Rwanda, meanwhile we presumably don't care if they abscond. And legal or otherwise their "prize" will be the freedom of Rwanda.
Boris Johnson said (BBC) that those who come to the UK "will be taken not to hotels at vast public expense" but instead would be housed in detention centres. So they are going to be locked up. So if they are going to be locked up why not lock them up in the UK rather than Uganda, process them, and then deport the unsuccessful ones to Uganda if that's the aim.
The whole point in this commute to London thing is to have minimal dwell times at airports. Ah well. Paid £lots to get a seat and a sandwich in Pret.
If they attempt to fly to the UK from Rwanda, the airlines face stiff fines for someone arriving without correct documentation. Over land is quite a long walk.... To Libya, for example.
So there would be little need to have a fence at the centre in Rwanda.
The huge flaw in the Govt's scheme -- well, leaving aside the ethics, the law and the cost -- is that it only works if everyone currently getting on a boat knows this is the policy and believes it will apply to them. This seems highly unlikely.
@PhillipsPOBrien
You know whose probably most affected by the sinking of the Moskva? I would say China. Another example of how this war is shaking up the strategic calculus and will, hopefully, make countries think twice about starting wars in the future.
https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1514502020258050051
On those terms it will probably work.
1. Many many Tory voters voted Brexit and Boris because they want fewer foreigners
2. Same voters baffled that not only have the forrin not left in large numbers but people keep coming in
3. Same just want them gone. Preferably somewhere awful. And think we should Take Back Control of our borders. Apparently they won't let us sink them, or shoot them. So send them to that place where they chopped each other up, that'll teach 'em.
It doesn't matter if the policy is legal, or practical, or costed, or stands even a hint of being implemented. All thats needed is a big press release, local Tories saying "how marvellous" and a nice photo of Patel smirking as she sticks a spade in the ground near Kigali. That she isn't building anything and the forrin won't be going to Rwanda isn't the objective.
Remind them what makes them really *really* mad. And thats people who aren't like them.
if processing them on shore cost 2000 per week and you get 100,000 a year and average time is 2 years you get a cost of 100,000 x 104 x 2000 = 80,800,000,000
divide that by 1.4 million and you only need to drop numbers to 57,000 refugees to actually be ahead as 57,000 x 1.4 mill = 79,800,000,000
My sense is the policy is designed to achieve this response in their main target demographic - people who voted "Boris" rather than Tory at GE19 - and provided it does so, that's a result.
It was written over 60 years ago.
It is like saying Perry Como is the best modern singer.
There may be too many laws in this country, I think you're right about performative lawmaking. However, every other PM (and Chancellor and PM's spouse) seemed to have no difficulty in sticking to them. We have to recognise the exceptional nature of what has happened.
It is also notable that these weren't old, obscure laws. These were laws that No. 10 had just instituted and were promulgating every day on the news and through social media. They can't claim ignorance.
I have a modicum of sympathy for Sunak in this regard. However, there are reported to be more fines down the track for Johnson, and there was clearly widespread and far more problematic rule-breaking by his staff going on under his nose, which he then misled Parliament about. It is not just a slice of cake.
Does Johnson think outside the box? I hardly think the vaccine taskforce was a stunningly inventive idea that no-one else would've thought of. Johnson didn't even think of it himself! It worked out well, but I don't think it excuses his otherwise very poor handling of the pandemic, let alone Partygate.
That's all you need to know about it. There is no intention of it doing anything worthwhile apart that political point.
https://smarkets.com/listing/politics/uk/2022-local-elections
Remember that my normal purpose in the airport is to get on the plane in as little time as possible. I have zero interest in shops or food places and hanging round for hours. I want a security queue that moves and no queueing.
Aberdeen airport yesterday morning was amazing. From the car the first time I stopped was at the tray to decant your stuff into at security. And that was despite a load of people with kids heading off on holiday.
I have no objection to levelling up poorer countries. This isn't it.
@iainmartin1
·
8h
As
@rcolvile
says, Twitter is not the country and this new policy is likely to be quite popular, at least initially. But... it looks fraught with logistical difficulties. The idea the Home Office and Border Force can handle this well seems implausible...
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1
Rwanda already has more refugees than we do. Perhaps we should be offering to help them with their refugees not the other way round.
The reasons that he might not have been let out on his own rapidly became apparent. The utter incoherence of his explanation of this Rwanda plan would have been deeply embarrassing had it not been for the utter drivel that followed when, inevitably, he was challenged about the PM's FPN.
Surely he will not be let out again. Just shocking. Surely even this government can do better than that.
Good scope for value bets such as Tories largest party in Bolton and Sutton NOC
A Labour majority in Sunderland is also free money.
ConservativeNew Party.And now that people have been conditioned to say "whats wrong with awarding £107m contracts without tender to companies founded 5 minutes ago by Tory donors / councillors / pub landlords" there is nothing to stop vast sums of public cash being trousered. And the public being robbed will applaud the thieves!!!
Mind you when I flew it was in the days easyJet didn’t do pre booked seats, or if they did charged a tenner for them, and being tier 1 automotive would they pay, would they shite.
Hard to imagine a worse context for the government to fight a by election. Disgraced MP. Disgraced PM. Disgraced Chancellor. Economy heading down the toilet. Taxes up. Costs up. NHS on its knees. Future bleak.
NEW THREAD
They know the UK will never take them back.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/nov/07/cost-of-australia-holding-each-refugee-on-nauru-balloons-to-43m-a-year
However - There was a pattern of Covid rule breaking at number 10 and by him. The rules broken were those he made and made a massive deal of instructing the nation to follow. He lied repeatedly to parliament about what went on. Just before this scandal broke he tried to abolish parliamentary scrutiny of standards. So it isn't trivial.
That said, there would be a validly tough decision for the Tory Party to make if Johnson really has been adding a lot of value to the process of governing the country. But as you say, he hasn't. His influence is neutral on a good day, negative otherwise, and there haven't been too many good days.
Yes, you may view BJ are resigning over the FPN as an automatic given but most would recognise (1) your view is biased that your politics (I’m sure SKS did a similar thing, you would come up with 101 reasons why he wasn’t guilty) and (2) that he was not convicted by a jury (arguably, if it was up to the Police alone, your Colaton friends would have been found similarly guilty).
I really don’t care much for BJ one way or the other but this whole “he’s been fined, he’s got to go” being pushed by a side who would move Heaven and Earth to justify their own side in a similar circumstance is just bollocks.
Meanwhile, Australia's illegal immigration rates are basically unaffected because most illegal immigrants get in by overstaying visas, not by getting on a boat.