The International Rescue Committee, the international aid charity run by former Labour cabinet minster David Miliband, has also condemned the plan. Flora Alexander, the IRC’s UK director, said:
This agreement marks yet another step in the wrong direction – doubling down on deterrence rather than offering meaningful protection. Prioritising tougher enforcement without creating safe, legal routes is both dangerous and ineffective. Evidence shows that these policies don’t stop people from seeking safety – they simply force them into more perilous journeys, putting lives at risk.
Proposals such as a ‘one-in, one-out’ scheme risk undermining the right to seek asylum, a core principle of international law. They ignore the root causes of why people cross borders in the first place – to escape conflict, persecution and crisis. Border security must not come at the expense of human rights or the UK’s moral and legal obligations.
It's clear that 'human rights' is really a ratchet to undermine state sovereignty.
I look forward to the legal cases within which the Fox Killer and other legal giants argue that France is an apocalyptic hell hole of a failed state and that it’s inhumane to send people there.
ObvRef: the case where they argued that it was against human rights to send people to… Edinburgh.
Care4Calais, a refugee charity, has condemned the ‘one in, one out’ deal that has just been announced. It says:
A grubby deal between two Governments that trades human lives. A deal that will likely be expensive, will make life harder for people who seek safety in the UK, but will do nothing to tackle the root cause of crossings - a lack of safe routes
If the policy gets off the ground then it might make some not risk the journey if they have family members in the UK .
Rwanda was a better policy
The problem with Rwanda is that no genuine asylum seekers would be processed and the backlog could have become much worse .
Would it have been beyond the wit of an incoming Labour gov with a huge majority to have tweaked Rwanda, especially with all the capital already ploughed into it, so that all illegal arrivals and asylum seekers were sent there and processed there and successful applicants would be brought to the UK whilst the unsuccessful would have the option of being sent home or staying on for a new life in Rwanda.
Labour just couldn’t bring themselves to do what might have worked because it was too close to Tory policy.
Lip service was paid to it, but IMV you really need to 'get' at the people-smuggling gangs, particularly at the very top. But given the international nature of the trade, that's difficult.
No details. Usually an ominous sign with Sir Keir Traitor
Give it a rest. They way you continually talk this country down, you are a bit rich throwing 'traitor' around.
Piss off. Having a gloomy outlook on a message board isn't giving away territories to potentially hostile countries and 'hiring them back' for millions of pounds drawn out of our defence budget. Or giving away 12 years of fishing rights for a vague promise to stop choking off our imports using SPS checks - which is against WTO rules anyway. Or shutting down homegrown AI projects whilst paying Google millions to host data in a way that even a local council wouldn't allow. Or allowing China to build a vast surveillance and detention centre within a stone's throw of parliament. I could go on.
I look forward to the legal cases within which the Fox Killer and other legal giants argue that France is an apocalyptic hell hole of a failed state and that it’s inhumane to send people there.
ObvRef: the case where they argued that it was against human rights to send people to… Edinburgh.
I look forward, after the above happens, to seeing a nice spread in the Observer Sunday Magazine where Jolyon invites readers to have a look around his beautiful Loire Chateau he bought with the fees from arguing that France is an apocalyptic hellhole of a failed state.
I look forward to the legal cases within which the Fox Killer and other legal giants argue that France is an apocalyptic hell hole of a failed state and that it’s inhumane to send people there.
ObvRef: the case where they argued that it was against human rights to send people to… Edinburgh.
Stephen Timms - “There are no plans to review the (Motability) Scheme’s qualifying benefits.”
That really is a nonsense. A couple of years ago waiting for my car to be serviced at Sytner BMW in Cardiff (it was still under a gratis service package- I'm not mad) there was a big Motability sign in the showroom.
A Motability car should be restricted to a basic Corsa and none of your fancy metallic colours.
Wouldn't it be better to have it as a simple stipend, so that the recipient could choose between using it for Uber or towards a car payment?
A large car, or at least boot, is sometimes required to carry a wheelchair or scooter.
The father of another kid at school was in a wheelchair (this was the later 80s). He designed a system that allowed the wheelchair to be picked up and placed in a box on the car's roof.
Very rarely, I see someone using such a system, which I think was developed from his ideas. Quite inventive, although the potential failure modes always concern me.
Spencer Hakimian @SpencerHakimian · 15m "A shocking poll shows Texas Democrat Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett is leading in the race for incumbent Republican John Cornyn's Senate seat." - Fox News
I don’t think Republicans realize just yet how ugly 2026 is going to be for them.
No details. Usually an ominous sign with Sir Keir Traitor
Give it a rest. They way you continually talk this country down, you are a bit rich throwing 'traitor' around.
Piss off. Having a gloomy outlook on a message board isn't giving away territories to potentially hostile countries and 'hiring them back' for millions of pounds drawn out of our defence budget. Or giving away 12 years of fishing rights for a vague promise to stop choking off our imports using SPS checks - which is against WTO rules anyway. Or shutting down homegrown AI projects whilst paying Google millions to host data in a way that even a local council wouldn't allow. Or allowing China to build a vast surveillance and detention centre within a stone's throw of parliament. I could go on.
The man is a national security risk.
Given your repeated shilling for Russia, I'll just LOL at that...
(Oh, and I could add your health and diet 'advice'... )
Anyway. I was walking in London last night and approached the Mandarin only to see what must have been around two dozen emergency vehicles and the street (the one I wanted to get to because that is where the Boris bikes are) cordoned off.
Bloke from Hampshire stabbed trying to fight off someone trying to steal his watch.
Stephen Timms - “There are no plans to review the (Motability) Scheme’s qualifying benefits.”
That really is a nonsense. A couple of years ago waiting for my car to be serviced at Sytner BMW in Cardiff (it was still under a gratis service package- I'm not mad) there was a big Motability sign in the showroom.
A Motability car should be restricted to a basic Corsa and none of your fancy metallic colours.
Wouldn't it be better to have it as a simple stipend, so that the recipient could choose between using it for Uber or towards a car payment?
A large car, or at least boot, is sometimes required to carry a wheelchair or scooter.
The father of another kid at school was in a wheelchair (this was the later 80s). He designed a system that allowed the wheelchair to be picked up and placed in a box on the car's roof.
Very rarely, I see someone using such a system, which I think was developed from his ideas. Quite inventive, although the potential failure modes always concern me.
This is while the user is not in the wheelchair, right?
The International Rescue Committee, the international aid charity run by former Labour cabinet minster David Miliband, has also condemned the plan. Flora Alexander, the IRC’s UK director, said:
This agreement marks yet another step in the wrong direction – doubling down on deterrence rather than offering meaningful protection. Prioritising tougher enforcement without creating safe, legal routes is both dangerous and ineffective. Evidence shows that these policies don’t stop people from seeking safety – they simply force them into more perilous journeys, putting lives at risk.
Proposals such as a ‘one-in, one-out’ scheme risk undermining the right to seek asylum, a core principle of international law. They ignore the root causes of why people cross borders in the first place – to escape conflict, persecution and crisis. Border security must not come at the expense of human rights or the UK’s moral and legal obligations.
It's clear that 'human rights' is really a ratchet to undermine state sovereignty.
Or the other way. Increasing 'nation-state' absolutism at the expense of international law and institutions is a ratchet to undermine human rights.
Spencer Hakimian @SpencerHakimian · 15m "A shocking poll shows Texas Democrat Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett is leading in the race for incumbent Republican John Cornyn's Senate seat." - Fox News
I don’t think Republicans realize just yet how ugly 2026 is going to be for them.
Anyway. I was walking in London last night and approached the Mandarin only to see what must have been around two dozen emergency vehicles and the street (the one I wanted to get to because that is where the Boris bikes are) cordoned off.
Bloke from Hampshire stabbed trying to fight off someone trying to steal his watch.
Stephen Timms - “There are no plans to review the (Motability) Scheme’s qualifying benefits.”
That really is a nonsense. A couple of years ago waiting for my car to be serviced at Sytner BMW in Cardiff (it was still under a gratis service package- I'm not mad) there was a big Motability sign in the showroom.
A Motability car should be restricted to a basic Corsa and none of your fancy metallic colours.
Wouldn't it be better to have it as a simple stipend, so that the recipient could choose between using it for Uber or towards a car payment?
A large car, or at least boot, is sometimes required to carry a wheelchair or scooter.
The father of another kid at school was in a wheelchair (this was the later 80s). He designed a system that allowed the wheelchair to be picked up and placed in a box on the car's roof.
Very rarely, I see someone using such a system, which I think was developed from his ideas. Quite inventive, although the potential failure modes always concern me.
This is while the user is not in the wheelchair, right?
Back in my community pharmacist days, as a vendor of aids for the disabled, I once sold, and fitted, a device like that!
And no, the idea was that the wheelchair user got himself out of the wheelchair and into the drivers seat of the car.
No details. Usually an ominous sign with Sir Keir Traitor
Give it a rest. They way you continually talk this country down, you are a bit rich throwing 'traitor' around.
Piss off. Having a gloomy outlook on a message board isn't giving away territories to potentially hostile countries and 'hiring them back' for millions of pounds drawn out of our defence budget. Or giving away 12 years of fishing rights for a vague promise to stop choking off our imports using SPS checks - which is against WTO rules anyway. Or shutting down homegrown AI projects whilst paying Google millions to host data in a way that even a local council wouldn't allow. Or allowing China to build a vast surveillance and detention centre within a stone's throw of parliament. I could go on.
The man is a national security risk.
Given your repeated shilling for Russia, I'll just LOL at that...
(Oh, and I could add your health and diet 'advice'... )
"Polish prosecutors have launched an investigation into far-right leader Grzegorz Braun after he declared the gas chambers at Auschwitz to be “fake” and said it is a “fact” that Jews have committed ritual slaughter of Christians. Denial of Nazi crimes is an offence in Poland that carries a jail sentence of up to three years."
Anyway. I was walking in London last night and approached the Mandarin only to see what must have been around two dozen emergency vehicles and the street (the one I wanted to get to because that is where the Boris bikes are) cordoned off.
Bloke from Hampshire stabbed trying to fight off someone trying to steal his watch.
The International Rescue Committee, the international aid charity run by former Labour cabinet minster David Miliband, has also condemned the plan. Flora Alexander, the IRC’s UK director, said:
This agreement marks yet another step in the wrong direction – doubling down on deterrence rather than offering meaningful protection. Prioritising tougher enforcement without creating safe, legal routes is both dangerous and ineffective. Evidence shows that these policies don’t stop people from seeking safety – they simply force them into more perilous journeys, putting lives at risk.
Proposals such as a ‘one-in, one-out’ scheme risk undermining the right to seek asylum, a core principle of international law. They ignore the root causes of why people cross borders in the first place – to escape conflict, persecution and crisis. Border security must not come at the expense of human rights or the UK’s moral and legal obligations.
It's clear that 'human rights' is really a ratchet to undermine state sovereignty.
Or the other way. Increasing 'nation-state' absolutism at the expense of international law and institutions is a ratchet to undermine human rights.
There's no human right to live in Britain, even if you have a speech impediment or high blood pressure.
Stephen Timms - “There are no plans to review the (Motability) Scheme’s qualifying benefits.”
That really is a nonsense. A couple of years ago waiting for my car to be serviced at Sytner BMW in Cardiff (it was still under a gratis service package- I'm not mad) there was a big Motability sign in the showroom.
A Motability car should be restricted to a basic Corsa and none of your fancy metallic colours.
Wouldn't it be better to have it as a simple stipend, so that the recipient could choose between using it for Uber or towards a car payment?
A large car, or at least boot, is sometimes required to carry a wheelchair or scooter.
The father of another kid at school was in a wheelchair (this was the later 80s). He designed a system that allowed the wheelchair to be picked up and placed in a box on the car's roof.
Very rarely, I see someone using such a system, which I think was developed from his ideas. Quite inventive, although the potential failure modes always concern me.
This is while the user is not in the wheelchair, right?
Yes... At least when I saw it used...
My teenage self thought it was quite ingenious. He would put the chair by the driver's seat, shuffle himself over, the 'arms' would come down from the roof, he would guide the chair into it, and the chair would be picked up and folded.
I never saw it come down. I assume it did, and there were not a few dozen wheelchairs on the roof of his car...
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
BBC called it right. They will come back with bigger demands and before you know it Starmer has agreed to pay another billion quid and Jersey is part of France.
I would be OK losing Jersey: bunch of tax dodging bastards.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
BBC called it right. They will come back with bigger demands and before you know it Starmer has agreed to pay another billion quid and Jersey is part of France.
I would be OK losing Jersey: bunch of tax dodging bastards.
(Though personally I think the Dems bigger issue is the broader left doubling down on some of its madder identity politics views.)
Thank you. I'm keen to watch it but only if it's offering more hope than fear or resignation. Can you confirm please?
Delivering hope and good news isn't really Peter Zeihan's thing, unfortunately. But its quite digestible and not 100% gloomy.
The point is, the Dems' electoral coalition is in trouble. On paper, Labour+ethnic vote+coastal liberals should be enough to win any election - but the coastal liberal vision doesn't enthuse Labour, and the ethnic vote - particularly the Hispanic vote - is getting more and more conservative. So the Dems need something more to rebuild their coalition. Rejection of Trump could provide that, but the last election showed it's not something to be relied upon - people are willing to vote for someone they dislike if they judge it will help their material circumstances, and for many, it will.
MY point - in response to yours earlier, though I've only just formulated this view - is that if American reject the Dems at the midterms, it neither means we should read into it enthusiasm for Trump, nor should we write them off as good people.
The International Rescue Committee, the international aid charity run by former Labour cabinet minster David Miliband, has also condemned the plan. Flora Alexander, the IRC’s UK director, said:
This agreement marks yet another step in the wrong direction – doubling down on deterrence rather than offering meaningful protection. Prioritising tougher enforcement without creating safe, legal routes is both dangerous and ineffective. Evidence shows that these policies don’t stop people from seeking safety – they simply force them into more perilous journeys, putting lives at risk.
Proposals such as a ‘one-in, one-out’ scheme risk undermining the right to seek asylum, a core principle of international law. They ignore the root causes of why people cross borders in the first place – to escape conflict, persecution and crisis. Border security must not come at the expense of human rights or the UK’s moral and legal obligations.
It's clear that 'human rights' is really a ratchet to undermine state sovereignty.
Damn right: states derive their legitimacy from humans, not the other way around.
The International Rescue Committee, the international aid charity run by former Labour cabinet minster David Miliband, has also condemned the plan. Flora Alexander, the IRC’s UK director, said:
This agreement marks yet another step in the wrong direction – doubling down on deterrence rather than offering meaningful protection. Prioritising tougher enforcement without creating safe, legal routes is both dangerous and ineffective. Evidence shows that these policies don’t stop people from seeking safety – they simply force them into more perilous journeys, putting lives at risk.
Proposals such as a ‘one-in, one-out’ scheme risk undermining the right to seek asylum, a core principle of international law. They ignore the root causes of why people cross borders in the first place – to escape conflict, persecution and crisis. Border security must not come at the expense of human rights or the UK’s moral and legal obligations.
It's clear that 'human rights' is really a ratchet to undermine state sovereignty.
Or the other way. Increasing 'nation-state' absolutism at the expense of international law and institutions is a ratchet to undermine human rights.
There's no human right to live in Britain, even if you have a speech impediment or high blood pressure.
Did I say there was? No. I was careful to match the tenor and framing of your lofty statement.
Lancashire word meaning 'rubbish'. I have a feeling it comes from the cotton industry referring to excess unusable material (as well as its more obvious sense) - though a brief internet search fails to back that up.
No details. Usually an ominous sign with Sir Keir Traitor
Give it a rest. They way you continually talk this country down, you are a bit rich throwing 'traitor' around.
Piss off. Having a gloomy outlook on a message board isn't giving away territories to potentially hostile countries and 'hiring them back' for millions of pounds drawn out of our defence budget. Or giving away 12 years of fishing rights for a vague promise to stop choking off our imports using SPS checks - which is against WTO rules anyway. Or shutting down homegrown AI projects whilst paying Google millions to host data in a way that even a local council wouldn't allow. Or allowing China to build a vast surveillance and detention centre within a stone's throw of parliament. I could go on.
The man is a national security risk.
Given your repeated shilling for Russia, I'll just LOL at that...
(Oh, and I could add your health and diet 'advice'... )
And the same point again: LG1983 is a bloke on the internet, SKS is the actual PM making all sorts of decisions quite contrary to the British national interest. One of these is clearly a threat to be taken much more seriously than the other.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
@MCCOfficial say: "Due to the extremely hot weather forecast throughout this week, we are dispensing with the requirement for Members to wear jackets in the Pavilion this Test." Ties for gents remain. "This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper." #ENGvIND"
Lancashire word meaning 'rubbish'. I have a feeling it comes from the cotton industry referring to excess unusable material (as well as its more obvious sense) - though a brief internet search fails to back that up.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
Many jobs are difficult. It doesn't meam we shouldn't try. How wojld you have repelled the Viking invasions? They only wanted sonewhere to live too.
No details. Usually an ominous sign with Sir Keir Traitor
Give it a rest. They way you continually talk this country down, you are a bit rich throwing 'traitor' around.
Piss off. Having a gloomy outlook on a message board isn't giving away territories to potentially hostile countries and 'hiring them back' for millions of pounds drawn out of our defence budget. Or giving away 12 years of fishing rights for a vague promise to stop choking off our imports using SPS checks - which is against WTO rules anyway. Or shutting down homegrown AI projects whilst paying Google millions to host data in a way that even a local council wouldn't allow. Or allowing China to build a vast surveillance and detention centre within a stone's throw of parliament. I could go on.
The man is a national security risk.
Given your repeated shilling for Russia, I'll just LOL at that...
(Oh, and I could add your health and diet 'advice'... )
And the same point again: LG1983 is a bloke on the internet, SKS is the actual PM making all sorts of decisions quite contrary to the British national interest. One of these is clearly a threat to be taken much more seriously than the other.
On the Internet, bots and trolls hold immense power.
Which is why stuff like anti-vax sentiment ends up killing thousands.
I actually saw myself bare chested staring at the TV looking at myself bare chested staring at the TV looking at myself bare chested staring at the TV looking at...
@MCCOfficial say: "Due to the extremely hot weather forecast throughout this week, we are dispensing with the requirement for Members to wear jackets in the Pavilion this Test." Ties for gents remain. "This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper." #ENGvIND"
No details. Usually an ominous sign with Sir Keir Traitor
Give it a rest. They way you continually talk this country down, you are a bit rich throwing 'traitor' around.
Piss off. Having a gloomy outlook on a message board isn't giving away territories to potentially hostile countries and 'hiring them back' for millions of pounds drawn out of our defence budget. Or giving away 12 years of fishing rights for a vague promise to stop choking off our imports using SPS checks - which is against WTO rules anyway. Or shutting down homegrown AI projects whilst paying Google millions to host data in a way that even a local council wouldn't allow. Or allowing China to build a vast surveillance and detention centre within a stone's throw of parliament. I could go on.
The man is a national security risk.
Given your repeated shilling for Russia, I'll just LOL at that...
(Oh, and I could add your health and diet 'advice'... )
And the same point again: LG1983 is a bloke on the internet, SKS is the actual PM making all sorts of decisions quite contrary to the British national interest. One of these is clearly a threat to be taken much more seriously than the other.
On the Internet, bots and trolls hold immense power.
Which is why stuff like anti-vax sentiment ends up killing thousands.
Are you seriously saying SKS giving away British territory to allies of the Chinese is a lesser threat to British interests than Leon and Luckyguy1983 complaining about this on the internet?
Care4Calais, a refugee charity, has condemned the ‘one in, one out’ deal that has just been announced. It says:
A grubby deal between two Governments that trades human lives. A deal that will likely be expensive, will make life harder for people who seek safety in the UK, but will do nothing to tackle the root cause of crossings - a lack of safe routes
If the policy gets off the ground then it might make some not risk the journey if they have family members in the UK .
Rwanda was a better policy
The problem with Rwanda is that no genuine asylum seekers would be processed and the backlog could have become much worse .
Would it have been beyond the wit of an incoming Labour gov with a huge majority to have tweaked Rwanda, especially with all the capital already ploughed into it, so that all illegal arrivals and asylum seekers were sent there and processed there and successful applicants would be brought to the UK whilst the unsuccessful would have the option of being sent home or staying on for a new life in Rwanda.
Labour just couldn’t bring themselves to do what might have worked because it was too close to Tory policy.
Isn’t the point that Rwanda don’t want all our asylum seekers. They were just happy to take a few for a price.
(Though personally I think the Dems bigger issue is the broader left doubling down on some of its madder identity politics views.)
Thank you. I'm keen to watch it but only if it's offering more hope than fear or resignation. Can you confirm please?
Delivering hope and good news isn't really Peter Zeihan's thing, unfortunately. But its quite digestible and not 100% gloomy.
The point is, the Dems' electoral coalition is in trouble. On paper, Labour+ethnic vote+coastal liberals should be enough to win any election - but the coastal liberal vision doesn't enthuse Labour, and the ethnic vote - particularly the Hispanic vote - is getting more and more conservative. So the Dems need something more to rebuild their coalition. Rejection of Trump could provide that, but the last election showed it's not something to be relied upon - people are willing to vote for someone they dislike if they judge it will help their material circumstances, and for many, it will.
MY point - in response to yours earlier, though I've only just formulated this view - is that if American reject the Dems at the midterms, it neither means we should read into it enthusiasm for Trump, nor should we write them off as good people.
Good points. The Dems are struggling structurally and it will take something special for them to win big at the midterms. But the way I see it the 'something special' is forming before our eyes. The gross and wicked corruption of the whole country, every aspect, every level, by Donald Trump.
So I think it's on (barring the election being rigged, which is possibly a flawed assumption, but let's not go there yet). I think the big Dem win, or perhaps more accurately the GOP loss, is on.
Could be wrong of course - I was in November - but I desperately hope not. As for writing them off if it doesn't happen, I think I'd have to. I'd be sad about it but I'd have to. It's not possible for a 'good people' to go along with this shit and retain a credible claim to that moniker.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
Many jobs are difficult. It doesn't meam we shouldn't try. How wojld you have repelled the Viking invasions? They only wanted sonewhere to live too.
Think of the practicalities . How many boats will the UK need to enforce this policy , and what happens when the boat refuses to turnaround . Does the new force try and attach a line and drag it back into French waters , in the meantime what if the boat starts to sink . Obviously the fuel situation will be an issue , the boat might run out of fuel even if it tried to get back to France . I expected this type of impractical and immoral policy to be peddled by Reform not learned members of this forum !
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
@MCCOfficial say: "Due to the extremely hot weather forecast throughout this week, we are dispensing with the requirement for Members to wear jackets in the Pavilion this Test." Ties for gents remain. "This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper." #ENGvIND"
Only under a Labour Government! This wouldn't have happened when Brave Sir Boris was PM!
I'm not sure it didn't happen in 2022. One place it certainly hasn't happened and would really be the end of days were it to ever be so is the Royal Enclosure at Ascot.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
That's a bit like someone in Germany in 1931 saying "Round up all the Jews to prevent Hitler a Hitler coronation".
Hard to see the difference between your proposed treatment and the disease you're trying to avoid.
Anyway. I was walking in London last night and approached the Mandarin only to see what must have been around two dozen emergency vehicles and the street (the one I wanted to get to because that is where the Boris bikes are) cordoned off.
Bloke from Hampshire stabbed trying to fight off someone trying to steal his watch.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
No details. Usually an ominous sign with Sir Keir Traitor
Give it a rest. They way you continually talk this country down, you are a bit rich throwing 'traitor' around.
Piss off. Having a gloomy outlook on a message board isn't giving away territories to potentially hostile countries and 'hiring them back' for millions of pounds drawn out of our defence budget. Or giving away 12 years of fishing rights for a vague promise to stop choking off our imports using SPS checks - which is against WTO rules anyway. Or shutting down homegrown AI projects whilst paying Google millions to host data in a way that even a local council wouldn't allow. Or allowing China to build a vast surveillance and detention centre within a stone's throw of parliament. I could go on.
The man is a national security risk.
Given your repeated shilling for Russia, I'll just LOL at that...
(Oh, and I could add your health and diet 'advice'... )
And the same point again: LG1983 is a bloke on the internet, SKS is the actual PM making all sorts of decisions quite contrary to the British national interest. One of these is clearly a threat to be taken much more seriously than the other.
On the Internet, bots and trolls hold immense power.
Which is why stuff like anti-vax sentiment ends up killing thousands.
Are you seriously saying SKS giving away British territory to allies of the Chinese is a lesser threat to British interests than Leon and Luckyguy1983 complaining about this on the internet?
Are you seriously saying the bots and trolls spreading misinformation and foreign propaganda are not a threat to our interests?
I actually saw myself bare chested staring at the TV looking at myself bare chested staring at the TV looking at myself bare chested staring at the TV looking at...
Now you've achieved your perfect heavenly state maybe you could just spend your time there instead of posting drivel on the internet? ;-)
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
A few flights and the boats would stop
Labour should have refined Rwanda but certainly today's announcement was a farce
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
That's a bit like someone in Germany in 1931 saying "Round up all the Jews to prevent Hitler a Hitler coronation".
Hard to see the difference between your proposed treatment and the disease you're trying to avoid.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Migration policy shouldn't be governed by fear of Nigel Farage who has no answers himself to the problem apart from saying how bad every other solution happens to be.
What of the costs of flying people to this "processing centre outside Europe"? (I presume we mean Rwanda or somewhere similar).
I presume the "hope" of those advocating such a solution is the possibility of ending up in a camp outside Kigali would be such a deterrent as to stop anyone trying to even attempt a crossing of the Channel.
Perhaps, I'm not wholly convinced. I'm also far from confident either we or the French have the resources to stop every dinghy or small boat and as you rightly say what we don't want is drowned people on beaches.
As for the ECHR, I'm not well informed as to the consequences of us leaving and suspect there would be significant disadvantages above and beyond what happens to those on the "small boats".
I actually saw myself bare chested staring at the TV looking at myself bare chested staring at the TV looking at myself bare chested staring at the TV looking at...
So unlike Zak Crawley five minutes into his average innings, he was not out.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, ye
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
That's a bit like someone in Germany in 1931 saying "Round up all the Jews to prevent Hitler a Hitler coronation".
Hard to see the difference between your proposed treatment and the disease you're trying to avoid.
To compare my comments with 1931 Germany is unworthy of you @Benpointer
They would be processed and either allowed back into the UK or their claim rejected
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
A few flights and the boats would stop
Labour should have refined Rwanda but certainly today's announcement was a farce
They might stop. But you’re still talking about a massive investment for “a few flights”. Then you have to keep that investment going because you can’t wind it down otherwise the deterrent is removed.
Like I have said over and over again, not simple. I think it makes more sense to make said massive investment on the mainland UK and spend the time and energy quickly processing people (with new laws to facilitate this if necessary) and deportations. Otherwise you’ll end up with what amounts to a prison on the other side of the world.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
That's a bit like someone in Germany in 1931 saying "Round up all the Jews to prevent Hitler a Hitler coronation".
Hard to see the difference between your proposed treatment and the disease you're trying to avoid.
An apologist for illegal immigration writes.
Someone who can't answer the point being made tosses out an ad hominem insult instead.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
A few flights and the boats would stop
Labour should have refined Rwanda but certainly today's announcement was a farce
I would like to think they would stop, but I doubt it. Smuggling is a business, and the operators are selling dreams to their customers, not reality. Would the customers even get to know about the flights, or would the smugglers' promises of a land of milk and honey overwhelm reality?
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
If PIP applications can be handled remotely, why can't asylum applications? The process is ludicrously long at present, and the system means that there is no limit on appeals, so if your claim is rejected, you can apeal ad infinitum. Why does the process even need to be a judicial one? It should be radically sped up, unclogging the court system and freeing up time for lawyers and judges - wouldn't that be nice?
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, ye
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
That's a bit like someone in Germany in 1931 saying "Round up all the Jews to prevent Hitler a Hitler coronation".
Hard to see the difference between your proposed treatment and the disease you're trying to avoid.
To compare my comments with 1931 Germany is unworthy of you @Benpointer
They would be processed and either allowed back into the UK or their claim rejected
So you need to find a location that has theoretical unlimited capacity to be a holding location for illegal immigrants indefinitely. Because “claim rejected” doesn’t mean they leave of their own free will.
Hint, that wasn’t Rwanda. Rwanda is a sovereign state who surprise surprise don’t want to be an unlimited dumping ground.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
A few flights and the boats would stop
Labour should have refined Rwanda but certainly today's announcement was a farce
They might stop. But you’re still talking about a massive investment for “a few flights”. Then you have to keep that investment going because you can’t wind it down otherwise the deterrent is removed.
Like I have said over and over again, not simple. I think it makes more sense to make said massive investment on the mainland UK and spend the time and energy quickly processing people (with new laws to facilitate this if necessary) and deportations. Otherwise you’ll end up with what amounts to a prison on the other side of the world.
Your last sentence would hugely increase the problem
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
A few flights and the boats would stop
Labour should have refined Rwanda but certainly today's announcement was a farce
I would like to think they would stop, but I doubt it. Smuggling is a business, and the operators are selling dreams to their customers, not reality. Would the customers even get to know about the flights, or would the smugglers' promises of a land of milk and honey overwhelm reality?
Fair point - not like they have access to the information superhighway. It is only the 17th century after all.
Comments
1. Send back about 5 people a day as 500 come over every day
2. Even as he sends them back we’ve got to take others who have a family link
3. So this will encourage more to try so they can establish a family link?
4. He hasn’t even got this terrible deal anyway, it’s just an agreement to maybe agree down the line maybe
Have I got that right?
ObvRef: the case where they argued that it was against human rights to send people to… Edinburgh.
Labour just couldn’t bring themselves to do what might have worked because it was too close to Tory policy.
Don't think I'd want to be whatever Leon considers normal to be.
The man is a national security risk.
Very rarely, I see someone using such a system, which I think was developed from his ideas. Quite inventive, although the potential failure modes always concern me.
@SpencerHakimian
·
15m
"A shocking poll shows Texas Democrat Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett is leading in the race for incumbent Republican John Cornyn's Senate seat." - Fox News
I don’t think Republicans realize just yet how ugly 2026 is going to be for them.
https://x.com/SpencerHakimian/status/1943340018073731215
* Blame autocorrect.
(Oh, and I could add your health and diet 'advice'... )
Bloke from Hampshire stabbed trying to fight off someone trying to steal his watch.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckglyvx49p4o
This was a very big deal indeed, plod-wise. Apart from every other wise also, obvs.
"Macron urges joint UK-French recognition of Palestinian state".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbcnews
Maybe your role is more of a gypsy, tramp or thief.
And no, the idea was that the wheelchair user got himself out of the wheelchair and into the drivers seat of the car.
https://youtu.be/Vt69FeFz-ko?si=xKNBp1SPCv7dHSwS
https://youtu.be/iSPzVzxF4Cc?si=_BZr2KqNbdJsey3N
(Though personally I think the Dems bigger issue is the broader left doubling down on some of its madder identity politics views.)
https://notesfrompoland.com/2025/07/10/polish-far-right-leader-declares-auschwitz-gas-chambers-to-be-fake/
"Polish prosecutors have launched an investigation into far-right leader Grzegorz Braun after he declared the gas chambers at Auschwitz to be “fake” and said it is a “fact” that Jews have committed ritual slaughter of Christians. Denial of Nazi crimes is an offence in Poland that carries a jail sentence of up to three years."
My teenage self thought it was quite ingenious. He would put the chair by the driver's seat, shuffle himself over, the 'arms' would come down from the roof, he would guide the chair into it, and the chair would be picked up and folded.
I never saw it come down. I assume it did, and there were not a few dozen wheelchairs on the roof of his car...
Edit: not quite how I remember it, but this sort of thing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7XAo7CMYlU
But anyway, nothing wrong with your suggestion.
"I was born in the wagon of a travelling show"
One of the great opening lines.
The Swinging '60s reach the MCC.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
The point is, the Dems' electoral coalition is in trouble. On paper, Labour+ethnic vote+coastal liberals should be enough to win any election - but the coastal liberal vision doesn't enthuse Labour, and the ethnic vote - particularly the Hispanic vote - is getting more and more conservative. So the Dems need something more to rebuild their coalition. Rejection of Trump could provide that, but the last election showed it's not something to be relied upon - people are willing to vote for someone they dislike if they judge it will help their material circumstances, and for many, it will.
MY point - in response to yours earlier, though I've only just formulated this view - is that if American reject the Dems at the midterms, it neither means we should read into it enthusiasm for Trump, nor should we write them off as good people.
Anyone who posts between 8am and 4pm is SAD
Anyone who posts between 4pm and Midnight is MAD
Anyone who posts between Midnight and 8am is BAD
@stGuyer
@MCCOfficial say: "Due to the extremely hot weather forecast throughout this week, we are dispensing with the requirement for Members to wear jackets in the Pavilion this Test." Ties for gents remain. "This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper." #ENGvIND"
https://x.com/stGuyer/status/1942652145905651919
How wojld you have repelled the Viking invasions? They only wanted sonewhere to live too.
Which is why stuff like anti-vax sentiment ends up killing thousands.
Not bad!
Only under a Labour Government! This wouldn't have happened when Brave Sir Boris was PM!
60 years ago we became part of the massive Redbridge... Massive!
So I think it's on (barring the election being rigged, which is possibly a flawed assumption, but let's not go there yet). I think the big Dem win, or perhaps more accurately the GOP loss, is on.
Could be wrong of course - I was in November - but I desperately hope not. As for writing them off if it doesn't happen, I think I'd have to. I'd be sad about it but I'd have to. It's not possible for a 'good people' to go along with this shit and retain a credible claim to that moniker.
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Hard to see the difference between your proposed treatment and the disease you're trying to avoid.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
Labour should have refined Rwanda but certainly today's announcement was a farce
What of the costs of flying people to this "processing centre outside Europe"? (I presume we mean Rwanda or somewhere similar).
I presume the "hope" of those advocating such a solution is the possibility of ending up in a camp outside Kigali would be such a deterrent as to stop anyone trying to even attempt a crossing of the Channel.
Perhaps, I'm not wholly convinced. I'm also far from confident either we or the French have the resources to stop every dinghy or small boat and as you rightly say what we don't want is drowned people on beaches.
As for the ECHR, I'm not well informed as to the consequences of us leaving and suspect there would be significant disadvantages above and beyond what happens to those on the "small boats".
Transcolia.
To compare my comments with 1931 Germany is unworthy of you @Benpointer
They would be processed and either allowed back into the UK or their claim rejected
Like I have said over and over again, not simple. I think it makes more sense to make said massive investment on the mainland UK and spend the time and energy quickly processing people (with new laws to facilitate this if necessary) and deportations. Otherwise you’ll end up with what amounts to a prison on the other side of the world.
Hint, that wasn’t Rwanda. Rwanda is a sovereign state who surprise surprise don’t want to be an unlimited dumping ground.
It worked for Australia