I woke up and logged in to be greeted with news of frogs on the road to Strathconan and otters on the causeways in the Hebrides and wondered what’s happening. Are all the animals on the move? Do they know something we don’t? This happens just before a natural cataclysm doesn’t it?
But then I scrolled down a bit and it turned into the more familiar Saturday night fare of PB’s lagered-up armchair football hooligans tapping out “send em all back” on their phones. So the animals aren’t on the move after all. That was just road signs.
He's correct on Farage - a wumpus * who will grasp for the next random piece of BS whenever the current fairy story starts stinking. Going directly for Farage will be like nailing said diarrhoea to the wall. The way to deal with it is for a practical policy to have a sufficient impact.
Farage’s plan doesn’t even seem to convince him, because he has not one but two back-up plans, presumably in case public servants refuse to carry out instructions that may be unlawful in common law. ... Attempts to point out the practical drawbacks of Farage’s policy are beside the point. The failures of existing asylum policy are so shocking, and the government seems to be so powerless to fix them, that almost any alternative policy seems worth a try. ... It is no use gambling the survival of the Labour government on the vagaries of judges and the whims of the French president. Starmer and Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, have worked diligently within the constraints of normal politics. ... they have been treating the small boats issue as if it is just an ordinary problem, instead of an emergency that threatens to make Farage prime minister. Starmer needs to throw everything at this problem. He needs to have been throwing everything at it since last year. ... The only thing that will defeat Farage’s unworkable asylum policy is a workable one. Starmer and Cooper have to find one, and quickly.
* With apologies to wumpods.
What is wrong with a backup plan? At the moment, if Government policy is enacted, and doesn't work as intended, do they try to fix it? Oh no, they spend at least until the next election pretending it was a roaring success. Having backup plans, or maybe just several avenues of approach, seems sensible.
I woke up and logged in to be greeted with news of frogs on the road to Strathconan and otters on the causeways in the Hebrides and wondered what’s happening. Are all the animals on the move? Do they know something we don’t? This happens just before a natural cataclysm doesn’t it?
But then I scrolled down a bit and it turned into the more familiar Saturday night fare of PB’s lagered-up armchair football hooligans tapping out “send em all back” on their phones. So the animals aren’t on the move after all. That was just road signs.
If road signs are on the move that's even more worrying.
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
BTW, a diagram of the process which doesn't end at the Court of Appeal (or even SC occasionally) is incomplete.
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Anyone who has immigrant family or friends need to think very carefully about what the current furore might mean for them. For many of the protestors, it is not just about boat people, but any immigrants, however integrated they may be. Or indeed, anyone who is different.
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
BTW, a diagram of the process which doesn't end at the Court of Appeal (or even SC occasionally) is incomplete.
The court of appeal bit is covered in the Judicial review bit.
He's correct on Farage - a wumpus * who will grasp for the next random piece of BS whenever the current fairy story starts stinking. Going directly for Farage will be like nailing said diarrhoea to the wall. The way to deal with it is for a practical policy to have a sufficient impact.
Farage’s plan doesn’t even seem to convince him, because he has not one but two back-up plans, presumably in case public servants refuse to carry out instructions that may be unlawful in common law. ... Attempts to point out the practical drawbacks of Farage’s policy are beside the point. The failures of existing asylum policy are so shocking, and the government seems to be so powerless to fix them, that almost any alternative policy seems worth a try. ... It is no use gambling the survival of the Labour government on the vagaries of judges and the whims of the French president. Starmer and Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, have worked diligently within the constraints of normal politics. ... they have been treating the small boats issue as if it is just an ordinary problem, instead of an emergency that threatens to make Farage prime minister. Starmer needs to throw everything at this problem. He needs to have been throwing everything at it since last year. ... The only thing that will defeat Farage’s unworkable asylum policy is a workable one. Starmer and Cooper have to find one, and quickly.
* With apologies to wumpods.
What is wrong with a backup plan? At the moment, if Government policy is enacted, and doesn't work as intended, do they try to fix it? Oh no, they spend at least until the next election pretending it was a roaring success. Having backup plans, or maybe just several avenues of approach, seems sensible.
Backup plans are normal. For Farage istm that he cites it as an indicator of the standard tactics.
The national flag of Scotland seems to manage to be a much used signal of peaceful Scottishness and SFAICS Scots are not embarrassed by its use, or troubled if lunatic Scots also use it a bit.
The answer for England is simply to emulate the Church of England and the Scouts and treat it as normal. As with Scotland, if it belongs to everyone it belongs to nutters, to the far left, the far right and the rest of us too.
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Anyone who has immigrant family or friends need to think very carefully about what the current furore might mean for them. For many of the protestors, it is not just about boat people, but any immigrants, however integrated they may be. Or indeed, anyone who is different.
This reminds me of the USA at the last election . Many voted for Trump thinking all the bad things would happen to others , they were wrong .
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Anyone who has immigrant family or friends need to think very carefully about what the current furore might mean for them. For many of the protestors, it is not just about boat people, but any immigrants, however integrated they may be. Or indeed, anyone who is different.
Unlike the States, it is much harder for an illegal immigrant to live, work, pay tax, get married. In the USA you seem to have the farcical situation where people have been living in the country illegally for years and have got married and have families, legitimate jobs and apparently pay taxes. At least I have never seen any of these hard cases accused of tax fraud. You would have thought that the first time you present yourself to a government organisation, eg to get married or pay tax, you would be on the first flight home. But that doesn't seem to be the case - and even if some states deliberately try to undermine the federal immigration system, you would have thought the IRS would do this
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Anyone who has immigrant family or friends need to think very carefully about what the current furore might mean for them. For many of the protestors, it is not just about boat people, but any immigrants, however integrated they may be. Or indeed, anyone who is different.
Sad to say, it is worth thinking about. But at the moment, there aren't many protesting, and that needs repeating. They are a small number of freaks. And if 2024 is anything to go by, many of them are a greater risk to Our Women And Kiddies than the people they are protesting about.
And whilst many in the media seem to have taken the old maxim you furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war to heart, they haven't succeeded yet. May they never do so.
He's correct on Farage - a wumpus * who will grasp for the next random piece of BS whenever the current fairy story starts stinking. Going directly for Farage will be like nailing said diarrhoea to the wall. The way to deal with it is for a practical policy to have a sufficient impact.
Farage’s plan doesn’t even seem to convince him, because he has not one but two back-up plans, presumably in case public servants refuse to carry out instructions that may be unlawful in common law. ... Attempts to point out the practical drawbacks of Farage’s policy are beside the point. The failures of existing asylum policy are so shocking, and the government seems to be so powerless to fix them, that almost any alternative policy seems worth a try. ... It is no use gambling the survival of the Labour government on the vagaries of judges and the whims of the French president. Starmer and Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, have worked diligently within the constraints of normal politics. ... they have been treating the small boats issue as if it is just an ordinary problem, instead of an emergency that threatens to make Farage prime minister. Starmer needs to throw everything at this problem. He needs to have been throwing everything at it since last year. ... The only thing that will defeat Farage’s unworkable asylum policy is a workable one. Starmer and Cooper have to find one, and quickly.
* With apologies to wumpods.
There is no solution - it's not like Italy / Greece where the country paying the biggest bribe can get the Libyan warlords to send the refugees in the other direction for a few weeks.
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Or just have fewer laws
What a good idea. However, like the hiker in Ireland, if you would like to get to that happy desination I wouldn't start from here.
We are far too far down the track of thinking that the answer to everything is further legal complexification and that the only way to simplify is to further complicate.
I don't want Reform to win in 2029, but if they do I am looking forward to their discovery of the effects of law making complexification, continuing daily, since the accession of Henry II (19th December 1154) just 871 years ago.
Wikipedia has a new Opinium poll with Ref 29%, Lab 23%, Con 17%, LD 14%, Grn 9% but I can't find reference to it anywhere else, and the link given in Wikipedia isn't working. So not sure it's genuine.
Ashcrofts monthly offering is also out and shows little change (f/w 14 to 18 Aug) Ref 27 (=) Lab 23 (+1) Con 20 (-1) Grn 11 (-2) LD 11 (=) SNP 3 (=) PC 1 (=)
I woke up and logged in to be greeted with news of frogs on the road to Strathconan and otters on the causeways in the Hebrides and wondered what’s happening. Are all the animals on the move? Do they know something we don’t? This happens just before a natural cataclysm doesn’t it?
But then I scrolled down a bit and it turned into the more familiar Saturday night fare of PB’s lagered-up armchair football hooligans tapping out “send em all back” on their phones. So the animals aren’t on the move after all. That was just road signs.
If road signs are on the move that's even more worrying.
Is there a road sign to indicate road signs on the move?
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Anyone who has immigrant family or friends need to think very carefully about what the current furore might mean for them. For many of the protestors, it is not just about boat people, but any immigrants, however integrated they may be. Or indeed, anyone who is different.
Unlike the States, it is much harder for an illegal immigrant to live, work, pay tax, get married. In the USA you seem to have the farcical situation where people have been living in the country illegally for years and have got married and have families, legitimate jobs and apparently pay taxes. At least I have never seen any of these hard cases accused of tax fraud. You would have thought that the first time you present yourself to a government organisation, eg to get married or pay tax, you would be on the first flight home. But that doesn't seem to be the case - and even if some states deliberately try to undermine the federal immigration system, you would have thought the IRS would do this
I doubt it is any different here, millions manage , they must be getting health , marrying, having families and using other services etc so not a lot different. They manage to claim benefits from abroad FFS.
I woke up and logged in to be greeted with news of frogs on the road to Strathconan and otters on the causeways in the Hebrides and wondered what’s happening. Are all the animals on the move? Do they know something we don’t? This happens just before a natural cataclysm doesn’t it?
But then I scrolled down a bit and it turned into the more familiar Saturday night fare of PB’s lagered-up armchair football hooligans tapping out “send em all back” on their phones. So the animals aren’t on the move after all. That was just road signs.
If road signs are on the move that's even more worrying.
Is there a road sign to indicate road signs on the move?
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Anyone who has immigrant family or friends need to think very carefully about what the current furore might mean for them. For many of the protestors, it is not just about boat people, but any immigrants, however integrated they may be. Or indeed, anyone who is different.
Yep. The chat about deportations worries me far more than some change to our application of the Refugee Convention, which I think is going to have to happen.
These people are here now regardless of any reform we make for future asylum seekers. We have to apply these processes however expensive and painful that is going to be, lest we accidentally deport someone with the right to live here or end up killing someone who is genuinely in mortal danger should they return.
This makes the prevarication over a change to the law so frustrating. It should have happened before this summer. It should have happened in 2021.
I woke up and logged in to be greeted with news of frogs on the road to Strathconan and otters on the causeways in the Hebrides and wondered what’s happening. Are all the animals on the move? Do they know something we don’t? This happens just before a natural cataclysm doesn’t it?
But then I scrolled down a bit and it turned into the more familiar Saturday night fare of PB’s lagered-up armchair football hooligans tapping out “send em all back” on their phones. So the animals aren’t on the move after all. That was just road signs.
If road signs are on the move that's even more worrying.
Is there a road sign to indicate road signs on the move?
Yes, there's one over the...
...Well there was one over there.
The problem with road signs on the move is they have no sense of direction. They either try angles or go round in circles.
He's correct on Farage - a wumpus * who will grasp for the next random piece of BS whenever the current fairy story starts stinking. Going directly for Farage will be like nailing said diarrhoea to the wall. The way to deal with it is for a practical policy to have a sufficient impact.
Farage’s plan doesn’t even seem to convince him, because he has not one but two back-up plans, presumably in case public servants refuse to carry out instructions that may be unlawful in common law. ... Attempts to point out the practical drawbacks of Farage’s policy are beside the point. The failures of existing asylum policy are so shocking, and the government seems to be so powerless to fix them, that almost any alternative policy seems worth a try. ... It is no use gambling the survival of the Labour government on the vagaries of judges and the whims of the French president. Starmer and Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, have worked diligently within the constraints of normal politics. ... they have been treating the small boats issue as if it is just an ordinary problem, instead of an emergency that threatens to make Farage prime minister. Starmer needs to throw everything at this problem. He needs to have been throwing everything at it since last year. ... The only thing that will defeat Farage’s unworkable asylum policy is a workable one. Starmer and Cooper have to find one, and quickly.
* With apologies to wumpods.
There is no solution - it's not like Italy / Greece where the country paying the biggest bribe can get the Libyan warlords to send the refugees in the other direction for a few weeks.
Even if there was one those two dummies could not run a bath. Amazing how the totally and completely untalented useless Cooper has ever got anywhere and Starmer is a muppet. Is it any wonder the country is totally f***ed when people vote for clowns like them constantly.
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Anyone who has immigrant family or friends need to think very carefully about what the current furore might mean for them. For many of the protestors, it is not just about boat people, but any immigrants, however integrated they may be. Or indeed, anyone who is different.
Yep. The chat about deportations worries me far more than some change to our application of the Refugee Convention, which I think is going to have to happen.
These people are here now regardless of any reform we make for future asylum seekers. We have to apply these processes however expensive and painful that is going to be, lest we accidentally deport someone with the right to live here or end up killing someone who is genuinely in mortal danger should they return.
This makes the prevarication over a change to the law so frustrating. It should have happened before this summer. It should have happened in 2021.
Typical liberal bleeding heart as long as it does not impact your idyllic life. Why this country is even more f***ed than usual. Country is run by a bunch of spineless yahoos.
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Anyone who has immigrant family or friends need to think very carefully about what the current furore might mean for them. For many of the protestors, it is not just about boat people, but any immigrants, however integrated they may be. Or indeed, anyone who is different.
Unlike the States, it is much harder for an illegal immigrant to live, work, pay tax, get married. In the USA you seem to have the farcical situation where people have been living in the country illegally for years and have got married and have families, legitimate jobs and apparently pay taxes. At least I have never seen any of these hard cases accused of tax fraud. You would have thought that the first time you present yourself to a government organisation, eg to get married or pay tax, you would be on the first flight home. But that doesn't seem to be the case - and even if some states deliberately try to undermine the federal immigration system, you would have thought the IRS would do this
I doubt it is any different here, millions manage , they must be getting health , marrying, having families and using other services etc so not a lot different. They manage to claim benefits from abroad FFS.
I very much doubt that is the case. Most of the "foreigner" benefit fraud is organised crime. As soon as you have ILR you have much the same rights to claim benefits as Brits do. ILR is what normal countries call Residency. Most of the Foreign-born claimants are doing so legally.
At one time you could claim Child Benefit for children living abroad. I am not sure if that is the case, however it perplexed me. CB is only paid to the main carer and if the child is living in Poland you are obviously not the main carer.
I did see two scratty England flags on the concrete bridge over the A1M. It was not patriotic.
That's likely to be the problem.
Back when a vocal minority were trying to get up a rebellion against ULEZ, one of their gimmicks was to put Christmas decorations on the camera poles. That was December 2023. There's one near me that still has some dismal shreds of tinsel and dead fairy lights on it now.
If we want flags done properly, that costs money and... well, we know the problem there.
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Or just have fewer laws
You certainly can have fewer laws if their replacements are well considered and in line with the body of jurisprudence - rather than the Rwandan fantasy for example.
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Anyone who has immigrant family or friends need to think very carefully about what the current furore might mean for them. For many of the protestors, it is not just about boat people, but any immigrants, however integrated they may be. Or indeed, anyone who is different.
Yep. The chat about deportations worries me far more than some change to our application of the Refugee Convention, which I think is going to have to happen.
These people are here now regardless of any reform we make for future asylum seekers. We have to apply these processes however expensive and painful that is going to be, lest we accidentally deport someone with the right to live here or end up killing someone who is genuinely in mortal danger should they return.
This makes the prevarication over a change to the law so frustrating. It should have happened before this summer. It should have happened in 2021.
Typical liberal bleeding heart as long as it does not impact your idyllic life. Why this country is even more f***ed than usual.
It will effect me if one of my neighbours or my colleagues is raided and abducted by a British version of ICE. 25% of people in Edinburgh were born outside the UK.
The bigger problem would be Glasgow which is 20% but have they have the vast majority of asylum seekers in Scotland.
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Or just have fewer laws
You certainly can have fewer laws if their replacements are well considered and in line with the body of jurisprudence - rather than the Rwandan fantasy for example.
Surely you have fewer laws by repealing them and putting nothing in their place. Your formula just keeps the number of laws the same.
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Anyone who has immigrant family or friends need to think very carefully about what the current furore might mean for them. For many of the protestors, it is not just about boat people, but any immigrants, however integrated they may be. Or indeed, anyone who is different.
Unlike the States, it is much harder for an illegal immigrant to live, work, pay tax, get married. In the USA you seem to have the farcical situation where people have been living in the country illegally for years and have got married and have families, legitimate jobs and apparently pay taxes. At least I have never seen any of these hard cases accused of tax fraud. You would have thought that the first time you present yourself to a government organisation, eg to get married or pay tax, you would be on the first flight home. But that doesn't seem to be the case - and even if some states deliberately try to undermine the federal immigration system, you would have thought the IRS would do this
How dare a working class woman buy a second home. Doesn't she realise that only middle class people are permitted to do this?
Seems the media have lost their collective senses at the moment that there is anyone other than Conservatives or Reform in charge. Given they were instrumental in knackering the last government by making impossible demands which the idiots tried to follow, I wonder why anyone would give the MSM any time at all.
Perhaps the BBC could start the process by cancelling their newspaper reviews.
I did see two scratty England flags on the concrete bridge over the A1M. It was not patriotic.
I drove up the M11 and A1 to York yesterday. A handful of England flags. Not very impressive, certainly compared with the festival of Union flags and St George crosses catching the evening sun on the M2 in Kent on Friday.
I woke up and logged in to be greeted with news of frogs on the road to Strathconan and otters on the causeways in the Hebrides and wondered what’s happening. Are all the animals on the move? Do they know something we don’t? This happens just before a natural cataclysm doesn’t it?
But then I scrolled down a bit and it turned into the more familiar Saturday night fare of PB’s lagered-up armchair football hooligans tapping out “send em all back” on their phones. So the animals aren’t on the move after all. That was just road signs.
If road signs are on the move that's even more worrying.
Is there a road sign to indicate road signs on the move?
Yes, there's one over the...
...Well there was one over there.
I'm sure I've seen "Do not block footpath" signs, blocking the footpath.
I did see two scratty England flags on the concrete bridge over the A1M. It was not patriotic.
That's likely to be the problem.
Back when a vocal minority were trying to get up a rebellion against ULEZ, one of their gimmicks was to put Christmas decorations on the camera poles. That was December 2023. There's one near me that still has some dismal shreds of tinsel and dead fairy lights on it now.
If we want flags done properly, that costs money and... well, we know the problem there.
Same happened with the Gilets Jaunes. Their rond-point encampments became progressively more shanty-like, and didn’t really convey the impression of an unstoppable grass roots force.
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Anyone who has immigrant family or friends need to think very carefully about what the current furore might mean for them. For many of the protestors, it is not just about boat people, but any immigrants, however integrated they may be. Or indeed, anyone who is different.
Yeah, I've heard arguments like this for almost all my adult life - decades.
No-one is listening anymore. Anyone on a boat, straight back on a plane - no ifs, no buts.
That's where the zeitgeist is at. People won't accept anything less or be fobbed off anymore.
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Anyone who has immigrant family or friends need to think very carefully about what the current furore might mean for them. For many of the protestors, it is not just about boat people, but any immigrants, however integrated they may be. Or indeed, anyone who is different.
Yep. The chat about deportations worries me far more than some change to our application of the Refugee Convention, which I think is going to have to happen.
These people are here now regardless of any reform we make for future asylum seekers. We have to apply these processes however expensive and painful that is going to be, lest we accidentally deport someone with the right to live here or end up killing someone who is genuinely in mortal danger should they return.
This makes the prevarication over a change to the law so frustrating. It should have happened before this summer. It should have happened in 2021.
No-one who's come here on a boat by paying people smugglers to infiltrate the UK has the "right to live here". They have the precise opposite.
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Anyone who has immigrant family or friends need to think very carefully about what the current furore might mean for them. For many of the protestors, it is not just about boat people, but any immigrants, however integrated they may be. Or indeed, anyone who is different.
Yeah, I've heard arguments like this for almost all my adult life - decades.
No-one is listening anymore. Anyone on a boat, straight back on a plane - no ifs, no buts.
That's where the zeitgeist is at. People won't accept anything less or be fobbed off anymore.
Good morning
I think that is exactly where the problem is
Everyone from across the political spectrum should want the boats stopped because that landmark would remove a lot of the toxic nature of this issue
Unfortunately we now have a far right far left angst with those of us in neither camp just wanting the issue resolved
I do worry that many who contribute so much to our society may well feel concerned and threatened, which is simply wrong
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Anyone who has immigrant family or friends need to think very carefully about what the current furore might mean for them. For many of the protestors, it is not just about boat people, but any immigrants, however integrated they may be. Or indeed, anyone who is different.
Yep. The chat about deportations worries me far more than some change to our application of the Refugee Convention, which I think is going to have to happen.
These people are here now regardless of any reform we make for future asylum seekers. We have to apply these processes however expensive and painful that is going to be, lest we accidentally deport someone with the right to live here or end up killing someone who is genuinely in mortal danger should they return.
This makes the prevarication over a change to the law so frustrating. It should have happened before this summer. It should have happened in 2021.
No-one who's come here on a boat by paying people smugglers to infiltrate the UK has the "right to live here". They have the precise opposite.
You're living on a different planet.
But they do. Under the current laws and Conventions more than 80% of them will ultimately be found to have the right to asylum here. That is the law as it stands and it is entirely wrong to blame "liberal judges" for applying it. If Parliament doesn't like it it is down to them to change it, not blame judges or courts from doing their jobs. Our politicians are looking for scapegoats for their own moral cowardice. As usual.
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Anyone who has immigrant family or friends need to think very carefully about what the current furore might mean for them. For many of the protestors, it is not just about boat people, but any immigrants, however integrated they may be. Or indeed, anyone who is different.
Yeah, I've heard arguments like this for almost all my adult life - decades.
No-one is listening anymore. Anyone on a boat, straight back on a plane - no ifs, no buts.
That's where the zeitgeist is at. People won't accept anything less or be fobbed off anymore.
That’s not going to work if the country won’t take them back - which is why the Rwandan dumping ground scheme started off.
Heck if I was Bangladesh - there is a lot to gained by refusing to accept anyone being sent back from the UK after all we created the precedent of revoking citizenship
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Anyone who has immigrant family or friends need to think very carefully about what the current furore might mean for them. For many of the protestors, it is not just about boat people, but any immigrants, however integrated they may be. Or indeed, anyone who is different.
Yep. The chat about deportations worries me far more than some change to our application of the Refugee Convention, which I think is going to have to happen.
These people are here now regardless of any reform we make for future asylum seekers. We have to apply these processes however expensive and painful that is going to be, lest we accidentally deport someone with the right to live here or end up killing someone who is genuinely in mortal danger should they return.
This makes the prevarication over a change to the law so frustrating. It should have happened before this summer. It should have happened in 2021.
No-one who's come here on a boat by paying people smugglers to infiltrate the UK has the "right to live here". They have the precise opposite.
You're living on a different planet.
But they do. Under the current laws and Conventions more than 80% of them will ultimately be found to have the right to asylum here. That is the law as it stands and it is entirely wrong to blame "liberal judges" for applying it. If Parliament doesn't like it it is down to them to change it, not blame judges or courts from doing their jobs. Our politicians are looking for scapegoats for their own moral cowardice. As usual.
And so we return full circle to the fact the ECHR and our current refugee rules don’t really work in a world where the numbers seeking such status are x0 times greater than the 20th century when the rules were first created
'You're situation with the kinder transport was obviously different from the small boat chancers.'
Wanker.
Why's he wrong?
Lord Dubs thought not but perhaps not in the way that assorted gammonry might think. He believed he had an uncomfortable but relatively short and straight forward journey to safety, but current refugees fleeing the various hellholes that the West is complicit in making hellish have long, dangerous paths to an uncertain future.
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Anyone who has immigrant family or friends need to think very carefully about what the current furore might mean for them. For many of the protestors, it is not just about boat people, but any immigrants, however integrated they may be. Or indeed, anyone who is different.
Yep. The chat about deportations worries me far more than some change to our application of the Refugee Convention, which I think is going to have to happen.
These people are here now regardless of any reform we make for future asylum seekers. We have to apply these processes however expensive and painful that is going to be, lest we accidentally deport someone with the right to live here or end up killing someone who is genuinely in mortal danger should they return.
This makes the prevarication over a change to the law so frustrating. It should have happened before this summer. It should have happened in 2021.
No-one who's come here on a boat by paying people smugglers to infiltrate the UK has the "right to live here". They have the precise opposite.
You're living on a different planet.
But they do. Under the current laws and Conventions more than 80% of them will ultimately be found to have the right to asylum here. That is the law as it stands and it is entirely wrong to blame "liberal judges" for applying it. If Parliament doesn't like it it is down to them to change it, not blame judges or courts from doing their jobs. Our politicians are looking for scapegoats for their own moral cowardice. As usual.
And so we return full circle to the fact the ECHR and our current refugee rules don’t really work in a world where the numbers seeking such status are x0 times greater than the 20th century when the rules were first created
There is no doubt the ECHR is coming under pressure to review its rules and not just from Reform and likely the conservatives, but across Europe countries are seeking changes
The problem is Starmer and Hermer who are rigid human right lawyers who simply will not consider anything that undermines their view the law must be obeyed, even if the law is an ass
Imagine if they announced they were to seek a review of the EHRC and consider suspending parts of it relating to immigration
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Anyone who has immigrant family or friends need to think very carefully about what the current furore might mean for them. For many of the protestors, it is not just about boat people, but any immigrants, however integrated they may be. Or indeed, anyone who is different.
Yep. The chat about deportations worries me far more than some change to our application of the Refugee Convention, which I think is going to have to happen.
These people are here now regardless of any reform we make for future asylum seekers. We have to apply these processes however expensive and painful that is going to be, lest we accidentally deport someone with the right to live here or end up killing someone who is genuinely in mortal danger should they return.
This makes the prevarication over a change to the law so frustrating. It should have happened before this summer. It should have happened in 2021.
No-one who's come here on a boat by paying people smugglers to infiltrate the UK has the "right to live here". They have the precise opposite.
You're living on a different planet.
But they do. Under the current laws and Conventions more than 80% of them will ultimately be found to have the right to asylum here. That is the law as it stands and it is entirely wrong to blame "liberal judges" for applying it. If Parliament doesn't like it it is down to them to change it, not blame judges or courts from doing their jobs. Our politicians are looking for scapegoats for their own moral cowardice. As usual.
And so we return full circle to the fact the ECHR and our current refugee rules don’t really work in a world where the numbers seeking such status are x0 times greater than the 20th century when the rules were first created
I've said this many times. As Macron pointed out there are major draws to the UK: it is a nice place to live, English speaking, broadly civilised, tolerant and law abiding. We have an informal and chaotic labour market making getting work really easy if you want it. Our current laws mean that if you can show you are an Afghan, for example, you have something like a 99% of being accepted and getting considerable assistance with accommodation and benefits.
But the biggest draw by far is that if you make a claim for asylum you have a bundle of rights and the entitlement to legal aid to enforce them. Any government who are even vaguely serious about illegal immigration has to confront that. Otherwise, they are simply pretending. As did the last government and the one before.
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Anyone who has immigrant family or friends need to think very carefully about what the current furore might mean for them. For many of the protestors, it is not just about boat people, but any immigrants, however integrated they may be. Or indeed, anyone who is different.
Yep. The chat about deportations worries me far more than some change to our application of the Refugee Convention, which I think is going to have to happen.
These people are here now regardless of any reform we make for future asylum seekers. We have to apply these processes however expensive and painful that is going to be, lest we accidentally deport someone with the right to live here or end up killing someone who is genuinely in mortal danger should they return.
This makes the prevarication over a change to the law so frustrating. It should have happened before this summer. It should have happened in 2021.
No-one who's come here on a boat by paying people smugglers to infiltrate the UK has the "right to live here". They have the precise opposite.
You're living on a different planet.
But they do. Under the current laws and Conventions more than 80% of them will ultimately be found to have the right to asylum here. That is the law as it stands and it is entirely wrong to blame "liberal judges" for applying it. If Parliament doesn't like it it is down to them to change it, not blame judges or courts from doing their jobs. Our politicians are looking for scapegoats for their own moral cowardice. As usual.
And so we return full circle to the fact the ECHR and our current refugee rules don’t really work in a world where the numbers seeking such status are x0 times greater than the 20th century when the rules were first created
It is an outdated bollox law that should have been binned long ago. Also judges are as big a bunch of tossers as the politicians.
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Anyone who has immigrant family or friends need to think very carefully about what the current furore might mean for them. For many of the protestors, it is not just about boat people, but any immigrants, however integrated they may be. Or indeed, anyone who is different.
Yep. The chat about deportations worries me far more than some change to our application of the Refugee Convention, which I think is going to have to happen.
These people are here now regardless of any reform we make for future asylum seekers. We have to apply these processes however expensive and painful that is going to be, lest we accidentally deport someone with the right to live here or end up killing someone who is genuinely in mortal danger should they return.
This makes the prevarication over a change to the law so frustrating. It should have happened before this summer. It should have happened in 2021.
No-one who's come here on a boat by paying people smugglers to infiltrate the UK has the "right to live here". They have the precise opposite.
You're living on a different planet.
But they do. Under the current laws and Conventions more than 80% of them will ultimately be found to have the right to asylum here. That is the law as it stands and it is entirely wrong to blame "liberal judges" for applying it. If Parliament doesn't like it it is down to them to change it, not blame judges or courts from doing their jobs. Our politicians are looking for scapegoats for their own moral cowardice. As usual.
Still, we have to thank the pols for becoming scapegoats for the bad choices we, the revolting masses, have made.
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Anyone who has immigrant family or friends need to think very carefully about what the current furore might mean for them. For many of the protestors, it is not just about boat people, but any immigrants, however integrated they may be. Or indeed, anyone who is different.
Yeah, I've heard arguments like this for almost all my adult life - decades.
No-one is listening anymore. Anyone on a boat, straight back on a plane - no ifs, no buts.
That's where the zeitgeist is at. People won't accept anything less or be fobbed off anymore.
That’s not going to work if the country won’t take them back - which is why the Rwandan dumping ground scheme started off.
Heck if I was Bangladesh - there is a lot to gained by refusing to accept anyone being sent back from the UK after all we created the precedent of revoking citizenship
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Anyone who has immigrant family or friends need to think very carefully about what the current furore might mean for them. For many of the protestors, it is not just about boat people, but any immigrants, however integrated they may be. Or indeed, anyone who is different.
Yep. The chat about deportations worries me far more than some change to our application of the Refugee Convention, which I think is going to have to happen.
These people are here now regardless of any reform we make for future asylum seekers. We have to apply these processes however expensive and painful that is going to be, lest we accidentally deport someone with the right to live here or end up killing someone who is genuinely in mortal danger should they return.
This makes the prevarication over a change to the law so frustrating. It should have happened before this summer. It should have happened in 2021.
No-one who's come here on a boat by paying people smugglers to infiltrate the UK has the "right to live here". They have the precise opposite.
You're living on a different planet.
But they do. Under the current laws and Conventions more than 80% of them will ultimately be found to have the right to asylum here. That is the law as it stands and it is entirely wrong to blame "liberal judges" for applying it. If Parliament doesn't like it it is down to them to change it, not blame judges or courts from doing their jobs. Our politicians are looking for scapegoats for their own moral cowardice. As usual.
Hardly think the law says if someone is unable to get chicken nuggets of a certain variety in their country of origin that we should be forced to take them , feed and house them , etc. If so the law really is an ass as we see often proven nowadays.
Following on from yesterday's discussion about endless fresh claims for asylum, it is clear (to people who are capable of thinking about the issue logically and not responding according to a notion of their own identity), that this should be stopped. Once someone's claim has been refused, I think that should be it - if there are new grounds to claim, that new claim should be in a new country.
I did see two scratty England flags on the concrete bridge over the A1M. It was not patriotic.
That's likely to be the problem.
Back when a vocal minority were trying to get up a rebellion against ULEZ, one of their gimmicks was to put Christmas decorations on the camera poles. That was December 2023. There's one near me that still has some dismal shreds of tinsel and dead fairy lights on it now.
If we want flags done properly, that costs money and... well, we know the problem there.
Same happened with the Gilets Jaunes. Their rond-point encampments became progressively more shanty-like, and didn’t really convey the impression of an unstoppable grass roots force.
One forgets the Gilets Jaunes
They were, in the French way, remarkably violent. I recall a travel assignment I did around Cognac/Bordeaux in late autumn (a bleak period in unlovely Cognac). It ended with a nice meal in a famous restaurant on a hill above Bordeaux. Michelin stars and all that
It was full of posh French people sipping expensive claret and peering down with mild curiosity at the riot in their city. It was so fierce you could see the fireworks and hear the distant clashes. Later we learned that people lost limbs in the fights. Maybe lives
The food was impeccably boring
Thinking about it now, it feels like the perfect metaphor for modern France
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Anyone who has immigrant family or friends need to think very carefully about what the current furore might mean for them. For many of the protestors, it is not just about boat people, but any immigrants, however integrated they may be. Or indeed, anyone who is different.
Yep. The chat about deportations worries me far more than some change to our application of the Refugee Convention, which I think is going to have to happen.
These people are here now regardless of any reform we make for future asylum seekers. We have to apply these processes however expensive and painful that is going to be, lest we accidentally deport someone with the right to live here or end up killing someone who is genuinely in mortal danger should they return.
This makes the prevarication over a change to the law so frustrating. It should have happened before this summer. It should have happened in 2021.
No-one who's come here on a boat by paying people smugglers to infiltrate the UK has the "right to live here". They have the precise opposite.
You're living on a different planet.
Chill out, you've misunderstood me. There's a difference between my opinion and what the laws says (or at least our application of it). That's the problem!
All I'm saying is that we all depend on these rules and if they don't work then you need to reform them. We should have changed them 4 years ago but that's water under the bridge. Now that these people are here, blanket deportations are not going to be legal, or indeed palatable to the UK population because one mistaken identity is going to cause a massive outcry.
Children have come across on the boats too. What's your plan for them?
Telegraph wakes up to the reality - which I have banged on about before on here - that social care costs in old age are effectively another aspect of the IHT system:
"Rachel Reeves has plans for your children’s inheritance. After announcing that pension pots will become subject to inheritance tax and slashing relief on family businesses and farms, there is much speculation that more such frights are in store in this autumn’s Budget.
But to large sections of the middle class, such ideological asset grabs may become an irrelevance. For most of us, there may be just too little money left to trouble the taxman after we have paid for care in our old age. And that is precisely what many on the Left are quietly thrilled by."
We should be more honest about what is going on. A significant chunk of people with assets end up losing all or most of it through care costs whilst others, through brute luck with their health, keep all theirs and pass on to next generation or at least only get hit for 40% of some of it.
'You're situation with the kinder transport was obviously different from the small boat chancers.'
Wanker.
I have always wondered why this incompetent nincompoop keeps being promoted on Radio 4, Radio 2 and BBC News, now I know. He understands how to load a question to the direction Tim Davie would most likely approve.
I don't want boat people rocking up to Great Yarmouth anymore than Rupert Lowe does. However, was the suffix "chancers" absolutely necessary unless a specific and political point was being made?
Following on from yesterday's discussion about endless fresh claims for asylum, it is clear (to people who are capable of thinking about the issue logically and not responding according to a notion of their own identity), that this should be stopped. Once someone's claim has been refused, I think that should be it - if there are new grounds to claim, that new claim should be in a new country.
And as I said yesterday the fix for that is to process the cases so quickly they don’t get time to create the evidence needed to justify a fresh application
And what did Bozo and co do, slow down the application process to save a few quid resulting in asylum claims taking years to be processed
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Anyone who has immigrant family or friends need to think very carefully about what the current furore might mean for them. For many of the protestors, it is not just about boat people, but any immigrants, however integrated they may be. Or indeed, anyone who is different.
Yep. The chat about deportations worries me far more than some change to our application of the Refugee Convention, which I think is going to have to happen.
These people are here now regardless of any reform we make for future asylum seekers. We have to apply these processes however expensive and painful that is going to be, lest we accidentally deport someone with the right to live here or end up killing someone who is genuinely in mortal danger should they return.
This makes the prevarication over a change to the law so frustrating. It should have happened before this summer. It should have happened in 2021.
No-one who's come here on a boat by paying people smugglers to infiltrate the UK has the "right to live here". They have the precise opposite.
You're living on a different planet.
But they do. Under the current laws and Conventions more than 80% of them will ultimately be found to have the right to asylum here. That is the law as it stands and it is entirely wrong to blame "liberal judges" for applying it. If Parliament doesn't like it it is down to them to change it, not blame judges or courts from doing their jobs. Our politicians are looking for scapegoats for their own moral cowardice. As usual.
And so we return full circle to the fact the ECHR and our current refugee rules don’t really work in a world where the numbers seeking such status are x0 times greater than the 20th century when the rules were first created
There is no doubt the ECHR is coming under pressure to review its rules and not just from Reform and likely the conservatives, but across Europe countries are seeking changes
The problem is Starmer and Hermer who are rigid human right lawyers who simply will not consider anything that undermines their view the law must be obeyed, even if the law is an ass
Imagine if they announced they were to seek a review of the EHRC and consider suspending parts of it relating to immigration
Labour are snookered on this.
Even if Starmer and Cooper came round to the way of thinking is to disapply the ECHR, any other conventions etc and scale back judicial discretion (which I am pretty sure they won’t, as it doesn’t fit with their sensibilities at all), the chances of Labour MPs voting all this through is absolutely zilch.
If they can’t get some modest welfare cuts through the Commons they’re not getting wholesale, drastic changes to immigration and asylum law that disapplies generations of legal precedent and process anywhere close to the statute book.
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Anyone who has immigrant family or friends need to think very carefully about what the current furore might mean for them. For many of the protestors, it is not just about boat people, but any immigrants, however integrated they may be. Or indeed, anyone who is different.
Yep. The chat about deportations worries me far more than some change to our application of the Refugee Convention, which I think is going to have to happen.
These people are here now regardless of any reform we make for future asylum seekers. We have to apply these processes however expensive and painful that is going to be, lest we accidentally deport someone with the right to live here or end up killing someone who is genuinely in mortal danger should they return.
This makes the prevarication over a change to the law so frustrating. It should have happened before this summer. It should have happened in 2021.
No-one who's come here on a boat by paying people smugglers to infiltrate the UK has the "right to live here". They have the precise opposite.
You're living on a different planet.
Chill out, you've misunderstood me. There's a difference between my opinion and what the laws says (or at least our application of it). That's the problem!
All I'm saying is that we all depend on these rules and if they don't work then you need to reform them. We should have changed them 4 years ago but that's water under the bridge. Now that these people are here, blanket deportations are not going to work or be palatable to the UK population because one mistaken identity is going to cause a massive outcry.
I think we should be clear about what we mean here. Are you say that people with no legal right to be living in the UK should not be deported? Because there's a danger that in so doing, someone who does have the legal right to live here could be deported? That's an extraordinary statement. Should we also not have a criminal justice policy for fear that there might be micarriages of justice?
'You're situation with the kinder transport was obviously different from the small boat chancers.'
Wanker.
I have always wondered why this incompetent nincompoop keeps being promoted on Radio 4, Radio 2 and BBC News, now I know. He understands how to load a question to the direction Tim Davie would most likely approve.
I don't want boat people rocking up to Great Yarmouth anymore than Rupert Lowe does. However, was the suffix "chancers" absolutely necessary unless a specific and political point was being made?
He could just have said illegal law breaking economic immigrants
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Anyone who has immigrant family or friends need to think very carefully about what the current furore might mean for them. For many of the protestors, it is not just about boat people, but any immigrants, however integrated they may be. Or indeed, anyone who is different.
Yep. The chat about deportations worries me far more than some change to our application of the Refugee Convention, which I think is going to have to happen.
These people are here now regardless of any reform we make for future asylum seekers. We have to apply these processes however expensive and painful that is going to be, lest we accidentally deport someone with the right to live here or end up killing someone who is genuinely in mortal danger should they return.
This makes the prevarication over a change to the law so frustrating. It should have happened before this summer. It should have happened in 2021.
No-one who's come here on a boat by paying people smugglers to infiltrate the UK has the "right to live here". They have the precise opposite.
You're living on a different planet.
But they do. Under the current laws and Conventions more than 80% of them will ultimately be found to have the right to asylum here. That is the law as it stands and it is entirely wrong to blame "liberal judges" for applying it. If Parliament doesn't like it it is down to them to change it, not blame judges or courts from doing their jobs. Our politicians are looking for scapegoats for their own moral cowardice. As usual.
And so we return full circle to the fact the ECHR and our current refugee rules don’t really work in a world where the numbers seeking such status are x0 times greater than the 20th century when the rules were first created
There is no doubt the ECHR is coming under pressure to review its rules and not just from Reform and likely the conservatives, but across Europe countries are seeking changes
The problem is Starmer and Hermer who are rigid human right lawyers who simply will not consider anything that undermines their view the law must be obeyed, even if the law is an ass
Imagine if they announced they were to seek a review of the EHRC and consider suspending parts of it relating to immigration
Labour are snookered on this.
Even if Starmer and Cooper came round to the way of thinking is to disapply the ECHR, any other conventions etc and scale back judicial discretion (which I am pretty sure they won’t, as it doesn’t fit with their sensibilities at all), the chances of Labour MPs voting all this through is absolutely zilch.
If they can’t get some modest welfare cuts through the Commons they’re not getting wholesale, drastic changes to immigration and asylum law that disapplies generations of legal precedent and process anywhere close to the statute book.
It's not SKS's style but he have to double down and make it a confidence vote. So the PLP get a choice of voting it through or a Fukker government.
We've had something similar for football grounds since Thatcher was PM, so presumably there's a mechanism.
Besides, laws don't stop bad things happening. At best, they discourage bad things happening by giving the State a power to punish people who are caught and proved to have done the bad thing.
Which is relevant for those who claim that we can completely fortify our borders by having the right laws.
Telegraph wakes up to the reality - which I have banged on about before on here - that social care costs in old age are effectively another aspect of the IHT system:
"Rachel Reeves has plans for your children’s inheritance. After announcing that pension pots will become subject to inheritance tax and slashing relief on family businesses and farms, there is much speculation that more such frights are in store in this autumn’s Budget.
But to large sections of the middle class, such ideological asset grabs may become an irrelevance. For most of us, there may be just too little money left to trouble the taxman after we have paid for care in our old age. And that is precisely what many on the Left are quietly thrilled by."
We should be more honest about what is going on. A significant chunk of people with assets end up losing all or most of it through care costs whilst others, through brute luck with their health, keep all theirs and pass on to next generation or at least only get hit for 40% of some of it.
Yep. We sold my mother’s flat in the spring and the proceeds are now disappearing at about £7,500 per month.
Telegraph wakes up to the reality - which I have banged on about before on here - that social care costs in old age are effectively another aspect of the IHT system:
"Rachel Reeves has plans for your children’s inheritance. After announcing that pension pots will become subject to inheritance tax and slashing relief on family businesses and farms, there is much speculation that more such frights are in store in this autumn’s Budget.
But to large sections of the middle class, such ideological asset grabs may become an irrelevance. For most of us, there may be just too little money left to trouble the taxman after we have paid for care in our old age. And that is precisely what many on the Left are quietly thrilled by."
We should be more honest about what is going on. A significant chunk of people with assets end up losing all or most of it through care costs whilst others, through brute luck with their health, keep all theirs and pass on to next generation or at least only get hit for 40% of some of it.
Yep. We sold my mother’s flat in the spring and the proceeds are now disappearing at about £7,500 per month.
The proceeds of twin A's house purchase went straight to the council and the family had to do all the hassle of selling it while the council hassled them daily for the money...
Telegraph wakes up to the reality - which I have banged on about before on here - that social care costs in old age are effectively another aspect of the IHT system:
"Rachel Reeves has plans for your children’s inheritance. After announcing that pension pots will become subject to inheritance tax and slashing relief on family businesses and farms, there is much speculation that more such frights are in store in this autumn’s Budget.
But to large sections of the middle class, such ideological asset grabs may become an irrelevance. For most of us, there may be just too little money left to trouble the taxman after we have paid for care in our old age. And that is precisely what many on the Left are quietly thrilled by."
We should be more honest about what is going on. A significant chunk of people with assets end up losing all or most of it through care costs whilst others, through brute luck with their health, keep all theirs and pass on to next generation or at least only get hit for 40% of some of it.
Yep. We sold my mother’s flat in the spring and the proceeds are now disappearing at about £7,500 per month.
The proceeds of twin A's house purchase went straight to the council and the family had to do all the hassle of selling it while the council hassled them daily for the money...
Unfortunately, the electorate have spat out every attempt to fund social care properly, because it involves paying more tax.
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Anyone who has immigrant family or friends need to think very carefully about what the current furore might mean for them. For many of the protestors, it is not just about boat people, but any immigrants, however integrated they may be. Or indeed, anyone who is different.
Yeah, I've heard arguments like this for almost all my adult life - decades.
No-one is listening anymore. Anyone on a boat, straight back on a plane - no ifs, no buts.
That's where the zeitgeist is at. People won't accept anything less or be fobbed off anymore.
You would be the last person anyone would look to to find out where the zeitgeist is.
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
Anyone who has immigrant family or friends need to think very carefully about what the current furore might mean for them. For many of the protestors, it is not just about boat people, but any immigrants, however integrated they may be. Or indeed, anyone who is different.
We've had something similar for football grounds since Thatcher was PM, so presumably there's a mechanism.
Besides, laws don't stop bad things happening. At best, they discourage bad things happening by giving the State a power to punish people who are caught and proved to have done the bad thing.
Which is relevant for those who claim that we can completely fortify our borders by having the right laws.
What seems strange to me is that ASBOs etc exist already - quite common to give one that says “Don’t go into any convenience store in area X” to someone who habitually steals from such stores.
Banning people from every pub in an area, or even setting foot in a geographically defined area is already possible. Why not do that?
Telegraph wakes up to the reality - which I have banged on about before on here - that social care costs in old age are effectively another aspect of the IHT system:
"Rachel Reeves has plans for your children’s inheritance. After announcing that pension pots will become subject to inheritance tax and slashing relief on family businesses and farms, there is much speculation that more such frights are in store in this autumn’s Budget.
But to large sections of the middle class, such ideological asset grabs may become an irrelevance. For most of us, there may be just too little money left to trouble the taxman after we have paid for care in our old age. And that is precisely what many on the Left are quietly thrilled by."
We should be more honest about what is going on. A significant chunk of people with assets end up losing all or most of it through care costs whilst others, through brute luck with their health, keep all theirs and pass on to next generation or at least only get hit for 40% of some of it.
Yep. We sold my mother’s flat in the spring and the proceeds are now disappearing at about £7,500 per month.
Which is of course way more than the figures being quoted in that article. Average care home costs in SOUTH EAST quoted as ≈ £950 a week.
Telegraph wakes up to the reality - which I have banged on about before on here - that social care costs in old age are effectively another aspect of the IHT system:
"Rachel Reeves has plans for your children’s inheritance. After announcing that pension pots will become subject to inheritance tax and slashing relief on family businesses and farms, there is much speculation that more such frights are in store in this autumn’s Budget.
But to large sections of the middle class, such ideological asset grabs may become an irrelevance. For most of us, there may be just too little money left to trouble the taxman after we have paid for care in our old age. And that is precisely what many on the Left are quietly thrilled by."
We should be more honest about what is going on. A significant chunk of people with assets end up losing all or most of it through care costs whilst others, through brute luck with their health, keep all theirs and pass on to next generation or at least only get hit for 40% of some of it.
Yep. We sold my mother’s flat in the spring and the proceeds are now disappearing at about £7,500 per month.
Which is of course way more than the figures being quoted in that article. Average care home costs in SOUTH EAST quoted as ≈ £950 a week.
They are having a laugh.
Suspect it depends a lot on the amount of care needed. Most people end up in care that is relatively affordable, but a smallish number of people end up with care needs that are ruinously expensive.
How far should we spread those risks over the whole community? An if we should, how?
Telegraph wakes up to the reality - which I have banged on about before on here - that social care costs in old age are effectively another aspect of the IHT system:
"Rachel Reeves has plans for your children’s inheritance. After announcing that pension pots will become subject to inheritance tax and slashing relief on family businesses and farms, there is much speculation that more such frights are in store in this autumn’s Budget.
But to large sections of the middle class, such ideological asset grabs may become an irrelevance. For most of us, there may be just too little money left to trouble the taxman after we have paid for care in our old age. And that is precisely what many on the Left are quietly thrilled by."
We should be more honest about what is going on. A significant chunk of people with assets end up losing all or most of it through care costs whilst others, through brute luck with their health, keep all theirs and pass on to next generation or at least only get hit for 40% of some of it.
Yep. We sold my mother’s flat in the spring and the proceeds are now disappearing at about £7,500 per month.
Which is of course way more than the figures being quoted in that article. Average care home costs in SOUTH EAST quoted as ≈ £950 a week.
They are having a laugh.
We did this before several years ago. and it is complex. Care home vs nursing home vs specialist nursing home. Variable by area, and also by facilities. And local councils get discounts and cross subsidies. And also commercial vs charity organisational setup.
My recommended reading for today – Chris Brain and the Nine O Clock Service trial outcomes. There's a lot of it - sorry.
This has been bubbling under a bit this week, and I have not seen it mentioned here, but it was prominent in my Telegraph newsletter this morning. This was the “nightclub service” in Sheffield that was closed amidst an abuse scandal in 1995. Chris Brain has been found guilty of about 15 offences this week.
I’d recommend the longish piece from the Telegraph (link below should go to the full piece not the paywall). It’s sensationalist about the “bikini clad go go dancers” (really) - tabloid prurience, but also has some exhibits that I have not seen before, and is very good on how a charismatic leader can groom followers using their respect, personal dependency, isolation from others, insecurity and can Jiu Jitsu their desire to help (‘if you really cared, you would ...’).
It is less good on how the service developed. and what it was about as an experiment. I think it also misses how such leaders and such experiments need stronger accountability structures, because they can also get lost in their own bubble, and even believe that what they are doing is reasonable / justified.
And here is a view from 1995 published in an evangelical music magazine, CrossRythms, which has a clear viewpoint but shines a usefully different spotlight – including media narratives that were outright fabrications:
The BBC coverage of the trial is also good. I’d recommend reading this about testimony by Revd Dr Mark Stibbe, who raised a red flag early, and was slapped down by the then Bishop of Sheffield. One problem was that the Bishop was not close enough to it after it moved out to its own venue so there were fewer guard rails, unlike the people who had in in their church building before.
As a follow up to the above, if you think it is an isolated case, search for the Vatican's investigation of the Basilica of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme in Rome in 2011. There is a report somewhere buried within the deepest confines of the Vatican.
It has a hotel next door which had a number of celebs visiting including Madona (nach).
As a follow up to the above, if you think it is an isolated case, search for the Vatican's investigation of the Basilica of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme in Rome in 2011. There is a report somewhere buried within the deepest confines of the Vatican.
It has a hotel next door which had a number of celebs visiting including Madona (nach).
I'm not thinking "isolated case".
I'm thinking more about specifics of a particular situation, and the particular lessons that apply in order to implement safeguarding principles (which are common across different contexts).
Even the Smyth case, for example, is difficult to compare, because Smyth set himself up as an important figure in a small independent charity, so that would be down to supervision by Trustees and Charity Commission regulation which is very hands off - rather than Brain who was under the supervision of a Diocesan Bishop as (iirc) a Priest-in-Charge.
For a further contrast, consider Bugbrooke (Jesus Army). That seems parallel, but that started as a village Baptist church - so independent and managed by "church elders", with minimal external supervision (except Charity Commission), which over time evolved into a more restorationist style setup, combined with a residential community manifested as a national network of community houses, and a business / property portfolio worth ~£50m.
A further difference is that Brain's victims were young adults, not children or teenagers. This is partly down to the core NOS target audience being young adults aged 18-30, not "youth" (some media is somewhat wrong on "youth-orientated").
Comments
But then I scrolled down a bit and it turned into the more familiar Saturday night fare of PB’s lagered-up armchair football hooligans tapping out “send em all back” on their phones. So the animals aren’t on the move after all. That was just road signs.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.
The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.
BTW, a diagram of the process which doesn't end at the Court of Appeal (or even SC occasionally) is incomplete.
The answer for England is simply to emulate the Church of England and the Scouts and treat it as normal. As with Scotland, if it belongs to everyone it belongs to nutters, to the far left, the far right and the rest of us too.
And whilst many in the media seem to have taken the old maxim you furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war to heart, they haven't succeeded yet. May they never do so.
We are far too far down the track of thinking that the answer to everything is further legal complexification and that the only way to simplify is to further complicate.
I don't want Reform to win in 2029, but if they do I am looking forward to their discovery of the effects of law making complexification, continuing daily, since the accession of Henry II (19th December 1154) just 871 years ago.
https://www.opinium.com/resource-center/opinium-voting-intention-20th-august-2025/
Ashcrofts monthly offering is also out and shows little change (f/w 14 to 18 Aug)
Ref 27 (=)
Lab 23 (+1)
Con 20 (-1)
Grn 11 (-2)
LD 11 (=)
SNP 3 (=)
PC 1 (=)
...Well there was one over there.
These people are here now regardless of any reform we make for future asylum seekers. We have to apply these processes however expensive and painful that is going to be, lest we accidentally deport someone with the right to live here or end up killing someone who is genuinely in mortal danger should they return.
This makes the prevarication over a change to the law so frustrating. It should have happened before this summer. It should have happened in 2021.
At one time you could claim Child Benefit for children living abroad. I am not sure if that is the case, however it perplexed me. CB is only paid to the main carer and if the child is living in Poland you are obviously not the main carer.
Back when a vocal minority were trying to get up a rebellion against ULEZ, one of their gimmicks was to put Christmas decorations on the camera poles. That was December 2023. There's one near me that still has some dismal shreds of tinsel and dead fairy lights on it now.
If we want flags done properly, that costs money and... well, we know the problem there.
The bigger problem would be Glasgow which is 20% but have they have the vast majority of asylum seekers in Scotland.
Perhaps the BBC could start the process by cancelling their newspaper reviews.
The A13 in Essex had surprisingly few too.
Kent is winning this competition hands down.
They are an active travel activist favourite.
No-one is listening anymore. Anyone on a boat, straight back on a plane - no ifs, no buts.
That's where the zeitgeist is at. People won't accept anything less or be fobbed off anymore.
You're living on a different planet.
'You're situation with the kinder transport was obviously different from the small boat chancers.'
Wanker.
"Pub and travel bans proposed in sentencing overhaul - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5ypej14j2xo
I think that is exactly where the problem is
Everyone from across the political spectrum should want the boats stopped because that landmark would remove a lot of the toxic nature of this issue
Unfortunately we now have a far right far left angst with those of us in neither camp just wanting the issue resolved
I do worry that many who contribute so much to our society may well feel concerned and threatened, which is simply wrong
Heck if I was Bangladesh - there is a lot to gained by refusing to accept anyone being sent back from the UK after all we created the precedent of revoking citizenship
She’s a cult hero here. The posh PBers working class Everyman, or woman in this case.
The problem is Starmer and Hermer who are rigid human right lawyers who simply will not consider anything that undermines their view the law must be obeyed, even if the law is an ass
Imagine if they announced they were to seek a review of the EHRC and consider suspending parts of it relating to immigration
But the biggest draw by far is that if you make a claim for asylum you have a bundle of rights and the entitlement to legal aid to enforce them. Any government who are even vaguely serious about illegal immigration has to confront that. Otherwise, they are simply pretending. As did the last government and the one before.
https://www.london.gov.uk/media-centre/mayors-press-release/new-GPS-tagging-scheme-for-stalking-offenders-launches-in-London
They were, in the French way, remarkably violent. I recall a travel assignment I did around Cognac/Bordeaux in late autumn (a bleak period in unlovely Cognac). It ended with a nice meal in a famous restaurant on a hill above Bordeaux. Michelin stars and all that
It was full of posh French people sipping expensive claret and peering down with mild curiosity at the riot in their city. It was so fierce you could see the fireworks and hear the distant clashes. Later we learned that people lost limbs in the fights. Maybe lives
The food was impeccably boring
Thinking about it now, it feels like the perfect metaphor for modern France
All I'm saying is that we all depend on these rules and if they don't work then you need to reform them. We should have changed them 4 years ago but that's water under the bridge. Now that these people are here, blanket deportations are not going to be legal, or indeed palatable to the UK population because one mistaken identity is going to cause a massive outcry.
Children have come across on the boats too. What's your plan for them?
"Rachel Reeves has plans for your children’s inheritance. After announcing that pension pots will become subject to inheritance tax and slashing relief on family businesses and farms, there is much speculation that more such frights are in store in this autumn’s Budget.
But to large sections of the middle class, such ideological asset grabs may become an irrelevance. For most of us, there may be just too little money left to trouble the taxman after we have paid for care in our old age. And that is precisely what many on the Left are quietly thrilled by."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/news/left-make-sure-children-inherit-nothing
We should be more honest about what is going on. A significant chunk of people with assets end up losing all or most of it through care costs whilst others, through brute luck with their health, keep all theirs and pass on to next generation or at least only get hit for 40% of some of it.
I don't want boat people rocking up to Great Yarmouth anymore than Rupert Lowe does. However, was the suffix "chancers" absolutely necessary unless a specific and political point was being made?
NEW THREAD
And what did Bozo and co do, slow down the application process to save a few quid resulting in asylum claims taking years to be processed
She’s vaping in a dinghy on holiday. What a legend.
Even if Starmer and Cooper came round to the way of thinking is to disapply the ECHR, any other conventions etc and scale back judicial discretion (which I am pretty sure they won’t, as it doesn’t fit with their sensibilities at all), the chances of Labour MPs voting all this through is absolutely zilch.
If they can’t get some modest welfare cuts through the Commons they’re not getting wholesale, drastic changes to immigration and asylum law that disapplies generations of legal precedent and process anywhere close to the statute book.
Besides, laws don't stop bad things happening. At best, they discourage bad things happening by giving the State a power to punish people who are caught and proved to have done the bad thing.
Which is relevant for those who claim that we can completely fortify our borders by having the right laws.
We're here because we (overall) chose to be here.
Banning people from every pub in an area, or even setting foot in a geographically defined area is already possible. Why not do that?
They are having a laugh.
How far should we spread those risks over the whole community? An if we should, how?
Steve Richards on radicalism, with special reference to Scotland
This has been bubbling under a bit this week, and I have not seen it mentioned here, but it was prominent in my Telegraph newsletter this morning. This was the “nightclub service” in Sheffield that was closed amidst an abuse scandal in 1995. Chris Brain has been found guilty of about 15 offences this week.
I’d recommend the longish piece from the Telegraph (link below should go to the full piece not the paywall). It’s sensationalist about the “bikini clad go go dancers” (really) - tabloid prurience, but also has some exhibits that I have not seen before, and is very good on how a charismatic leader can groom followers using their respect, personal dependency, isolation from others, insecurity and can Jiu Jitsu their desire to help (‘if you really cared, you would ...’).
It is less good on how the service developed. and what it was about as an experiment. I think it also misses how such leaders and such experiments need stronger accountability structures, because they can also get lost in their own bubble, and even believe that what they are doing is reasonable / justified.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/7c7079c71f941030
For a context, the Wiki articles is good and short on the history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_O'Clock_Service
And here is a view from 1995 published in an evangelical music magazine, CrossRythms, which has a clear viewpoint but shines a usefully different spotlight – including media narratives that were outright fabrications:
https://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/articles/music/The_Media_Scandal_Behind_Sheffields_Nine_OClock_Service_/40388/p1/
The BBC coverage of the trial is also good. I’d recommend reading this about testimony by Revd Dr Mark Stibbe, who raised a red flag early, and was slapped down by the then Bishop of Sheffield. One problem was that the Bishop was not close enough to it after it moved out to its own venue so there were fewer guard rails, unlike the people who had in in their church building before.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2zv6e762lo
Also, Stibbe was one of the victims in the John Smyth case a around 1980. Here's Stibbe on that case:
https://www.channel4.com/news/i-remember-a-man-who-used-religious-language-to-justify-violence-says-victim-of-john-symth
One thing I'm disappointed by is that the Telegraph has not tried to evaluate whether lessons have been learned over 30 years.
It has a hotel next door which had a number of celebs visiting including Madona (nach).
I'm thinking more about specifics of a particular situation, and the particular lessons that apply in order to implement safeguarding principles (which are common across different contexts).
Even the Smyth case, for example, is difficult to compare, because Smyth set himself up as an important figure in a small independent charity, so that would be down to supervision by Trustees and Charity Commission regulation which is very hands off - rather than Brain who was under the supervision of a Diocesan Bishop as (iirc) a Priest-in-Charge.
For a further contrast, consider Bugbrooke (Jesus Army). That seems parallel, but that started as a village Baptist church - so independent and managed by "church elders", with minimal external supervision (except Charity Commission), which over time evolved into a more restorationist style setup, combined with a residential community manifested as a national network of community houses, and a business / property portfolio worth ~£50m.
A further difference is that Brain's victims were young adults, not children or teenagers. This is partly down to the core NOS target audience being young adults aged 18-30, not "youth" (some media is somewhat wrong on "youth-orientated").