Suella Braverman - sacked as Home Secretary (p394)

[The Future’s Blue!]

Anybody heard that we have only processed 4% of the migrants applications, to which resulted in an 80% being granted asylum.

That says to me that the Home Office is seriously underfunded, or they have seriously lazy people working for them, and that our system is completely wrong if that many are entitled to claim asylum.

What a fucked up system we have, all to keep the Little Englander onside.

 

[andyhinch]

Anybody heard that we have only processed 4% of the migrants applications, to which resulted in an 80% being granted asylum.

That says to me that the Home Office is seriously underfunded, or they have seriously lazy people working for them, and that our system is completely wrong if that many are entitled to claim asylum.

What a fucked up system we have, all to keep the Little Englander onside.

I suspect the system is working as the government intend it to.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

It's so convenient that you're an expert on Albanian human rights standards and safety as well as being anti-immigration.

Click.

 

[bluethrunthru]

Dave giving off strong London black cab driver vibes here

 

[meltonblue]

Anybody heard that we have only processed 4% of the migrants applications, to which resulted in an 80% being granted asylum.

That says to me that the Home Office is seriously underfunded, or they have seriously lazy people working for them, and that our system is completely wrong if that many are entitled to claim asylum.

What a fucked up system we have, all to keep the Little Englander onside.

Same with plenty of departments, HMRC being another example where if they funded both properly they’d significantly recoup far more than the additional resources required by doing it.

Prime examples of where the conservatives have eschewed financial competence for political bollocks.

 

[Chris in London]

Well I would start with all those bonkers ones that have stopped convicted criminals from being deported and then move onto the ones illegal migrants use to stay in the UK or remain in the UK, if they have over-stayed their visa. There was an infamous case from when Theresa May was home secretary often brought up erroneously about a Bolivian man who overstayed and she said he had claimed to stay on human rights grounds because he owned a cat. The cat wasn't the issue, he was allowed to stay because he was in a long-term relationship and used the 'the right to family life' element of the Human Rights convention to be allowed to stay. In my opinion knowing he was here short-term he should have a) not got himself into such a meaningful relationship or b) made sure if he had done so that the woman concerned would be prepared to move back to Bolivia once his visa was up.

There was a thing in the news recently about a convicted member of a grooming gang - it took seven years to deport him to Pakistan and he was hiding behind the family life element of human rights to prolong and prolong things. Two things stood out: it cost 5.5 million of public money to resolve the issue through the courts (greedy lawyers defending the indefencible) but I also couldn't believe it when I read he was sent to jail for six years, yet allowed out after two and a half. Why not just deport him in the first place saving 5.5 million plus whatever 30 months in jail costs the country and use the money to help more deserving people which is basically pretty much anyone, because what he was convicted for was abhorrent. We are just such a very soft country though.

I also have a bit of a problem with people stating that they have to stay in Britain because if they return to where they have left, they will be persecuted for being gay or for being a certain religion (just two examples). Just because our country is progressive and inclusive doesn't mean everyone should be able to come here. Why not make changes in the country you live in - as we are seeing with the brave women (and their supporters) in Iran, right now. In Britain, in the early 1960s did all gay men secretly try to move to a more enlightened place and live their lives openly there? or did they work and work and work on getting the laws changed here, successfully in the end.

wow.

that’s an awful lot of text in which you haven’t accurately identified a single actual existing right that you think should be changed. would you for instance abolish the right to marry, or the right to a fair trial? What about the right to be free from torture?

do you want to have another go at naming the rights you would repeal? To get you started, try actually reading the rights you want to get rid of rather than relying on what someone else has inaccurately told you they are. You can find the text of the European convention very easily on line, and it only actually sets out eighteen rights.

because you haven’t actually thought this through so far, have you?

 

[Chris in London]

I said that, I said the cat thing was not the reason the fella stayed - but the point I then made was a valid one.

No it wasnt

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Same with plenty of departments, HMRC being another example where if they funded both properly they’d significantly recoup far more than the additional resources required by doing it.

Prime examples of where the conservatives have eschewed financial competence for political bollocks.

If you were getting away with paying your due then who would you vote for?

Rhetorical, of course.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Over half of Albanians are successful in their asylum claim, so it clearly isn’t a safe place to live for everyone by our own admission.

Which makes no longer being a member a big loss, as we are no longer able to wave a carrot (membership of the in the direction of their government in return for them moving towards sorting out their internal issues.

Makes you think, why don't we just reach a bilateral agreement to give them work permits to do work that we have shortages in.

 

[Vic]

Well I would start with all those bonkers ones that have stopped convicted criminals from being deported and then move onto the ones illegal migrants use to stay in the UK or remain in the UK, if they have over-stayed their visa. There was an infamous case from when Theresa May was home secretary often brought up erroneously about a Bolivian man who overstayed and she said he had claimed to stay on human rights grounds because he owned a cat. The cat wasn't the issue, he was allowed to stay because he was in a long-term relationship and used the 'the right to family life' element of the Human Rights convention to be allowed to stay. In my opinion knowing he was here short-term he should have a) not got himself into such a meaningful relationship or b) made sure if he had done so that the woman concerned would be prepared to move back to Bolivia once his visa was up.

There was a thing in the news recently about a convicted member of a grooming gang - it took seven years to deport him to Pakistan and he was hiding behind the family life element of human rights to prolong and prolong things. Two things stood out: it cost 5.5 million of public money to resolve the issue through the courts (greedy lawyers defending the indefencible) but I also couldn't believe it when I read he was sent to jail for six years, yet allowed out after two and a half. Why not just deport him in the first place saving 5.5 million plus whatever 30 months in jail costs the country and use the money to help more deserving people which is basically pretty much anyone, because what he was convicted for was abhorrent. We are just such a very soft country though.

I also have a bit of a problem with people stating that they have to stay in Britain because if they return to where they have left, they will be persecuted for being gay or for being a certain religion (just two examples). Just because our country is progressive and inclusive doesn't mean everyone should be able to come here. Why not make changes in the country you live in - as we are seeing with the brave women (and their supporters) in Iran, right now. In Britain, in the early 1960s did all gay men secretly try to move to a more enlightened place and live their lives openly there? or did they work and work and work on getting the laws changed here, successfully in the end.



I sort of get what you are saying. You mention North Korea... but what about Australia? They wanted to sort out their illegal migration issue and they did their equivalent of a Rwanda scheme using the island of Nauru. I saw a programme about it, it was an absolute disgrace what those people went through and many suicides resulted. I can't make a direct comparison with people flown by us to Rwanda, because none have gone. But I doubt it will be Nauru 2.0 and yet is Australia considered 'a pariah state that barely trades with anyone'? I don't believe so.

In many peoples' eyes Australia is considered a strong country that took decisive action to sort out an issue of concern, whilst we are weak and do not.

Hard cases make bad law.