HUNDREDS of academic experts signed a joint letter today, condemning the Tory government’s anti-asylum seeker Bill as “not evidence based, workable or legal under human rights law.”
More than 300 scholars from mostly British universities warned that the Illegal Migration Bill will not stop small boats crossing the Channel but would increase “the chance of death” as people are funnelled into more dangerous journeys.
The letter – published online and in The Times newspaper – called the legislation, which cleared its first Commons hurdle on Monday, a “deterrence approach” by ministers in response to increasing numbers fleeing war and persecution.
But the experts warned that there is “no evidence that we are aware of to suggest that deterrence-based approaches are effective.”
Thanks for making my heightened surveillance status so obvious – you couldn’t have made it more obvious really. A dodgy unannounced Android update that refuses to install smoothly, browsers on my lappy refusing to work as before – so that I can’t make purchases from shops that I use regularly. Surely I wouldn’t notice that?
If anyone is overseeing Sue-Ellen Braverman, please ask her why she is putting a political opponent under intrusive surveillance for me.
15/3/23: political opponent is probably the wrong term. The point I’m making is that these actions are for political rather than any legitimate purpose.
THE BBC has reportedly rebuked Gary Lineker for describing the government’s anti-refugee rhetoric as “language not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the ’30s.”
The famous footballer and presenter’s tweet has enraged Tory MPs, some of whom have called for him to be sacked. But he is not the first to have called out the grim historical precedent.
It was child Holocaust survivor Joan Salter who confronted Home Secretary Suella Braverman earlier this year, pointing to exactly the same parallels between Nazi demonisation of Jews and the language she uses when attacking refugees.
This Tory administration is extremist. Braverman admits she thinks it more likely than not her plans breach the European Convention on Human Rights, which we as a country are obliged to respect: she doesn’t care.
But the countering voice for a more compassionate, principled approach is absent from Westminster. Labour scaremongers over boat crossings as well to claim the Tories have lost control.
Proposals to imprison asylum-seekers arriving by small boat would be illegal, UNHCR tells the Home Secretary
PROPOSALS endorsed by Suella Braverman to lock up refugees arriving in small boats and bar them from ever settling in Britain would breach international law, the United Nations refugee agency warned today.
The idea were set out in a report by right-wing think tank the Centre for Policy Studies, with a foreword written by the Home Secretary — seen as a partial endorsement of the measures.
The report suggests that,“if necessary” to tackle small boat crossings, Britain should withdraw from the European Convention of Human Rights.
People who arrive “illegally” in Britain, it says, should be detained indefinitely and ministers should legislate to make it impossible to for a person who travels here from a “safe” country to claim asylum.
Hitting out at the report, the United Nations high commissioner for refugees (UNHCR) questioned the authors’ use of the term “illegal,” noting that there is “no such thing as an illegal asylum-seeker.”
RISHI SUNAK’S decision to reappoint Suella Braverman just days after her resignation over security breaches sets a “dangerous precedent,” a damning report by MPs has warned.
The Tory-led public administration and constitutional affairs committee released its latest report on government ethics today, singling out the PM for particular criticism over the decision.
The Home Secretary was forced to resign after sending official documents via her private email to a Tory backbencher and accidentally copying in an aid.
But soon after Mr Sunak took over the premiership, he reappointed her, sparking widespread anger and concerns that Ms Braverman’s return could pose a risk to national security.
We’ve heard very little from Sue-Ellen Braverman since she was bullied recently apparently. If you can’t take it … Her remarks about the Guardian-reading tofu-eating wokerati and the anti-groth coalition while she was Home Secretary under Liz Truss were a bit mad I thought.
Dallas was a popular soap opera starting in 1978 following the lives of a super rich oil family in Dallas. There was a lot of scandal since it was an imaginary soap opera. I didn’t really watch it to be honest but might have noticed Bobby Ewing once or twice – [ed: he doesn’t look at all fit now] . There was JR Ewing the main boss and a real crook, Suella Ewing his drunken wife, think that they all had affairs. Was it curvy Pam Ewing married to hot Bobby? [ed: Bobby doesn’t look at all hot now]
Just Stop Oil (JSO) activists in UK have been imprisoned for Thoughtcrime and being woke tofu-eating Guardian-readers. Posing with an expensive Chinook helicopter Parody Home Secretary Sue-Ellen Braverman said “Of all those arrested – although they had not committed any actual physical crime – there is indisputable evidence that they had thought about it. There are claims that they had sworn an oath to take action to get arrested protecting the planet within a month. I will be totally over the top at every opportunity.”
She continued “I will use all the power of the state to intimidate and isolate individuals who dare not agree with me. I want to make quite clear that we’re talking about political activists here, usually but not necessarily men, people of different ages who meet and come together – yes totally voluntarily and without any duress – we will not have adults mingling and cavorting with each other. Through our extensive covert intelligence activities we know that one of the most vocal Just Stop Oil supporters was intending to meet one particular ‘youngman’ through a gay dating website. As I say, through our extensive covert operations, we have prevented that from happening and made clear our threats to stifle any such legal behaviour. I will not have people getting on with their private lives and enjoying themselves when they oppose us.”
ed: 7 Nov 22 To clarify: It’s a threat to interfere of course, that a prospective contact has been identified and the very reference to his nick (since altered) is threatening. It’s common knowledge that things work that way. There should be absolutely no interference in my private life. There is absolutely no reason why the Home Secretary should even be aware of my contacts who are absolutely nothing to do with activism. I call on the Home Secretary to resign.
[9/11/22 Braverman landed her Chinook on 3rd November. My message to ‘youngman’ on 2nd November ended “have respect for yourself and expect respect from other people even if we never meet. X”]
later: It’s more than just reference to his nick on this one occasion.
I am proposing this as a serious question. Please let me know if you have any serious suggestions.
Very unfortunately it appears that our thick as mince Home Secretary is censoring comments except on the shit article. I’ll be watching for suggestions there and elsewhere. dizzy@ …
5/11/22 Looks like I’m going to get some help with this – which I am so grateful for. Please confirm
5/11/22 Disabling comments on this blog is an extreme measure affecting far more people than myself only. Freedom of expression and participation in the democratic process is denied to all those who wish to comment.
My website stats are also censored.
It is difficult to regard this as anything other than a deliberate stifling of political debate in opposition to the current government. It is in fact a silencing of all political debate since comments are permitted on the basis that they are relevent and do not include advertising only. The one or two comments that get through are generally critical of the left or me.
I remind civil servants e.g. GCHQ and MI5, that they should behave impartially.
23: 30ish ed: I request that you reassess restrictions applied to this blog that discusses political issues.
But two people from Afghanistan told the Guardian that they were brought to London without having a clear idea of where they could stay. They describe scenes of rushed confusion as staff ushered them on to buses at the holding centre, before they were abandoned at Victoria railway station.
A young asylum seeker from Afghanistan was among the group of 11 people left on the street outside Victoria station on Tuesday evening. He said he had told Home Office staff during an interview before leaving the camp that he had no relatives or acquaintances in the UK.
“They asked me if I had any friends or family and I replied I had no one in England,” he said. Later he was asked by officials what city he would like to go to, and he said he would like to go to London, assuming that accommodation would be provided for him.
The young man, who asked not to be named, said he asked the bus driver where he should go as they arrived at Victoria station. “I thought there was going to be a hotel for us. He said: ‘Go anywhere you want to go, it’s not my responsibility.’ I told the driver I don’t have any address or any relatives. He said: ‘I can’t do anything for you.’”