How do you know they aren't being persecuted or threatened just by looking at them? Should they have a leg missing or maybe an ear from being tortured?I believe they're not true asylum seekers because they are not being persecuted or threatened in their own country.
We're only filling hotels because we aren't employing enough staff to process claims quick enough. Putting them in hotels is a simple distraction tactic. It would be cheaper to allow sage routes, emply more staff to process claims and put staff on borders in France. We used to do that but something called Brexit put an end to it.We can only speculate about their motives but we cannot continue to fill hotels with people from other counties.
Maybe it's their designer clothes. mobile telephones and generally looking well nourished that gives that impression.How do you know they aren't being persecuted or threatened just by looking at them? Should they have a leg missing or maybe an ear from being tortured?
We're only filling hotels because we aren't employing enough staff to process claims quick enough. Putting them in hotels is a simple distraction tactic. It would be cheaper to allow sage routes, emply more staff to process claims and put staff on borders in France. We used to do that but something called Brexit put an end to it.
Don’t forget the flatscreen TVs they’ve brought over with them.Maybe it's their designer clothes. mobile telephones and generally looking well nourished that gives that impression.
So assuming their claims are processed and accepted quickly where would you suggest we accommodate them ?
Do they have to look impoverished? You do know they don't all wear grass skirts and live in mud huts?Maybe it's their designer clothes. mobile telephones and generally looking well nourished that gives that impression.
So assuming their claims are processed and accepted quickly where would you suggest we accommodate them ?
They wouldn't all necessarily be accepted so they go back. If they are accepted they can be dispersed around the country.So assuming their claims are processed and accepted quickly where would you suggest we accommodate them ?
Yeah, thought you might like that.Migrants is correct
Not 'Aslyum Seekers' - glad that you finally acknowledge that fact.
Criminals is the accurate description.
The question I saved was how many doctors are waiting to work having illegally entered the Country.
A Brit with cajones at last. It doesn't take much wondering why she'd get fired.Fuck me, she doesn't hold back.
The former home secretary isn't going quietly and isn't finished yet, says the BBC's political editor.www.bbc.co.uk
Dear Prime Minister
Thank you for your phone call yesterday morning in which you asked me to leave government. While disappointing, this is for the best.
It has been my privilege to serve as home secretary and deliver on what the British people have sent us to Westminster to do.
I want to thank all of those civil servants, police, Border Force officers and security professionals with whom I have worked and whose dedication to public safety is exemplary.
I am proud of what we achieved together: delivering on our manifesto pledge to recruit 20,000 new police officers and enacting new laws such as the Public Order Act 2023 and the National Security Act 2023.
I also led a programme of reform: on anti-social behaviour, police dismissals and standards, reasonable lines of enquiry, grooming gangs, knife crime, non-crime hate incidents and rape and serious sexual offences.
And I am proud of the strategic changes that I was delivering to Prevent, Contest, serious organised crime and fraud. I am sure that this work will continue with the new ministerial team.
As you know, I accepted your offer to serve as home secretary in October 2022 on certain conditions.
Despite you having been rejected by a majority of party members during the summer leadership contest and thus having no personal mandate to be prime minister, I agreed to support you because of the firm assurances you gave me on key policy priorities. These were, among other things:
This was a document with clear terms to which you agreed in October 2022 during your second leadership campaign. I trusted you. It is generally agreed that my support was a pivotal factor in winning the leadership contest and thus enabling you to become prime minister.
- Reduce overall legal migration as set out in the 2019 manifesto through, inter alia, reforming the international students route and increasing salary thresholds on work visas
- Include specific "notwithstanding clauses" into new legislation to stop the boats, ie exclude the operation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Human Rights Act (HRA) and other international law that had thus far obstructed progress on this issue
- Deliver the Northern Ireland Protocol and Retained EU Law Bills in their then existing form and timetable
- Issue unequivocal statutory guidance to schools that protects biological sex, safeguards single sex spaces, and empowers parents to know what is being taught to their children.
For a year, as home secretary I have sent numerous letters to you on the key subjects contained in our agreement, made requests to discuss them with you and your team, and put forward proposals on how we might deliver these goals.
I worked up the legal advice, policy detail and action to take on these issues. This was often met with equivocation, disregard and a lack of interest.
You have manifestly and repeatedly failed to deliver on every single one of these key policies. Either your distinctive style of government means you are incapable of doing so. Or, as I must surely conclude now, you never had any intention of keeping your promises.
These are not just pet interests of mine. They are what we promised the British people in our 2019 manifesto which led to a landslide victory. They are what people voted for in the 2016 Brexit Referendum.
Our deal was no mere promise over dinner, to be discarded when convenient and denied when challenged.
I was clear from day one that if you did not wish to leave the ECHR, the way to securely and swiftly deliver our Rwanda partnership would be to block off the ECHR, the HRA and any other obligations which inhibit our ability to remove those with no right to be in the UK. Our deal expressly referenced "notwithstanding clauses" to that effect.
Your rejection of this path was not merely a betrayal of our agreement, but a betrayal of your promise to the nation that you would do "whatever it takes" to stop the boats.
At every stage of litigation I cautioned you and your team against assuming we would win. I repeatedly urged you to take legislative measures that would better secure us against the possibility of defeat. You ignored these arguments. You opted instead for wishful thinking as a comfort blanket to avoid having to make hard choices. This irresponsibility has wasted time and left the country in an impossible position.
If we lose in the Supreme Court, an outcome that I have consistently argued we must he prepared for, you will have wasted a year and an Act of Parliament, only to arrive back at square one.
Worse than this, your magical thinking - believing that you can will your way through this without upsetting polite opinion - has meant you have failed to prepare any sort of credible Plan B.
I wrote to you on multiple occasions setting out what a credible Plan B would entail, and making clear that unless you pursue these proposals, in the event of defeat, there is no hope of flights this side of an election. I received no reply from you.
I can only surmise that this is because you have no appetite for doing what is necessary, and therefore no real intention of fulfilling your pledge to the British people.
If, on the other hand, we win in the Supreme Court, because of the compromises that you insisted on in the Illegal Migration Act, the government will struggle to deliver our Rwanda partnership in the way that the public expects.
The Act is far from secure against legal challenge. People will not be removed as swiftly as I originally proposed. The average claimant will be entitled to months of process, challenge, and appeal. Your insistence that Rule 39 indications are binding in international law - against the views of leading lawyers, as set out in the House of Lords - will leave us vulnerable to being thwarted yet again by the Strasbourg Court.
Another cause for disappointment - and the context for my recent article in The Times - has been your failure to rise to the challenge posed by the increasingly vicious antisemitism and extremism displayed on our streets since Hamas's terrorist atrocities of 7 October.
I have become hoarse urging you to consider legislation to ban the hate marches and help stem the rising tide of racism, intimidation and terrorist glorification threatening community cohesion.
Britain is at a turning point in our history and faces a threat of radicalisation and extremism in a way not seen for 20 years.
I regret to say that your response has been uncertain, weak, and lacking in the qualities of leadership that this country needs. Rather than fully acknowledge the severity of this threat, your team disagreed with me for weeks that the law needed changing.
As on so many other issues, you sought to put off tough decisions in order to minimise political risk to yourself. In doing so, you have increased the very real risk these marches present to everyone else.
In October of last year you were given an opportunity to lead our country. It is a privilege to serve and one we should not take for granted. Service requires bravery and thinking of the common good.
It is not about occupying the office as an end in itself.
Someone needs to be honest: your plan is not working, we have endured record election defeats, your resets have failed and we are running out of time. You need to change course urgently.
I may not have always found the right words, but I have always striven to give voice to the quiet majority that supported us in 2019. I have endeavoured to be honest and true to the people who put us in these privileged positions.
I will, of course, continue to support the government in pursuit of policies which align with an authentic conservative agenda.
Entering the Country via a dinghy is illegal - a criminal activity.Yeah, thought you might like that.
Criminals, all of them - every last one of them.
You’d also better watch out for the ones that have been here years & contributed to making their lives & other people’s better. You just can’t trust them.
You must be frit with worry that you can’t tell the ones that have been here years from the others - I mean, so many of them converse & live their lives so well.
But yeah, criminals.
To my knowledge it’s illegal, if they don’t claim asylum.Entering the Country via a dinghy is illegal - a criminal activity.
If someone has entered the Country legally and has been here for 'years' then that's fine. So what's your point?
Hey Hackney - try reading the article again
Proven to be cheaper?To my knowledge it’s illegal, if they don’t claim asylum.
And to my knowledge since all of those do, then their claims should be processed, which is proven to be significantly cheaper than coming up with stupid ideas.
So what’s your point?
You can't fake this level of insecurity and ignorance.I do wonder if you really are so repugnant and ignorant or if you're just on the wind up?
Ooh, you saved it? Wow, what a trump card, you've got us now. Why don't you tell us, you seem to know the answer.The question I saved was how many doctors are waiting to work having illegally entered the Country.
What would be the point? Your standard response appears to be along the lines of “I reject it” or “I don’t believe it”.Off you trot - come back with some facts or don't bother
Why have you put that in quotes? I have never said thatWhat would be the point? Your standard response appears to be along the lines of “I reject it” or “I don’t believe it”.
You’re obviously keen to find out more given the many questions you throw around here - go & find it yourself.