To wonder what part of this statement reminded Gary L of Nazi Germany?

[marmaladeo]

This is Suella Braverman's statement Gary Lineker was reacting to when he said "This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s" ... twitter.com/GaryLineker/status/1633094764865126400

If she was saying she wanted to stop immigration I could understand GL's reaction. But she's not. I don't understand why anyone would not want to "stop the boats" when 1. they're lethal and 2. they're being run by criminal gangs. If GL had made it clear he wanted to stop the boats but thought this policy was the wrong way to do it, then fine. But he didn't - he just made an extremely inflammatory statement. He might be getting lots of love from some quarters, but personally I think he's an egotist who is playing into the hands of the people smugglers.

Interesting reading the UN Refugee Convention that we signed up to

www.unhcr.org/1951-refugee-convention.html

www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10

It does look like the UK is going to break it.

Which is not a good look for us.

If the voter pressure is there governments will start to react

From what I have seen polls show people support measures to resolve boat issue

It's a pathetic mess in part by the BBC who have handled it badly. All they needed to do is to say that Lineker is an excellent presenter and has opinions.

Instead, Tory MPs may have got him sacked. They may like that idea but they are quickly realising that it makes them look like the kind of people who cannot tolerate free speech. That, combined with this current policy on asylum is not a good look.

Yes it may appease some die hard Telegraph readers and some Conservatives but more people will be appalled. They have to win votes, not look like they want everyone in line. People will see that and are taking for what it is - and clearly they don't like it.

@Anklespraying i assume you missed my question in your efforts to police the civility of other posters (FWIW telling me my viewpoint is ‘sad’ isn’t generally considered civil either).

regardless I’d be keen for this info if you can provide it?

Exactly

I do think that the fact that mainland UK was not invaded during WW2 has shaped our politics and European relationships. We know what happened to people in Europe during WW2. Persecution, fleeing homes, genocide. Refugees across Europe.

And just a couple of decades after all this, Europe worked together. Maybe because of what happened?

International laws were developed. International courts developed.

It will not be a good look if we decide to tear up and withdraw from such agreements. And how can we talk to other countries about human rights?

Withdrawing from international agreements would have consequences for the UK reaching far beyond matters of refugees. The UK would (rightly) be seen as an untrustworthy player on the international stage - not to be trusted in trade, its people not to be trusted to work in signatory countries, its status as a fair and democratic nation wiped out. It would cost the UK economy billions in the long term.

But hey, no pesky refugees. Great.

You are actually contradicting yourself in your attempt to try to undermine me.

It is then up to that country to determine whether they have a valid claim or not

If there's no such thing as a fake asylum seeker then there's no such thing as an invalid claim. If all asylum seekers are genuine and not fake as you say, then how can they not be valid?

Any one who gives the right answers is valid. Anyone can give the right answers. The scripts are all in the public domain. It's part of the smugglers service and part of the migration service they provide.

There's a sort hypocritical hostile insistence from open borders people that everyone is honest and trustworthy except the UK nationals that expect border controls.

We are deserving of a good kicking. We aren't human....

Has this happened to Aus?

This entire thread is the single biggest argument for introducing critical thinking as a compulsory subject in our schools. I'm finding the wilful ignorance terrifying.

@@cakeorwine like 50% of the UK cares what we look like. Just believe the rhetoric of the current government and get pissed off when they cannot retire to Spain/ the bloody EU will not allow free trade anymore........

The EU has made it clear about the need for the EHCR to remain. That underpins the Good Friday agreement and the Brexit deals.

The Tories are not ‘extremist far right’.

Upthread I posted that the government now intends to criminalise and deport the victims of trafficking. Not the traffickers - a lot of whom are actually UK based according to news last week.

Can anyone explain how that stops or reduces trafficking (that’s a rhetorical question - I don’t expect you to have an answer for such a complex situation.)

It’s genuinely disturbing. Here’s why.

“Excluding migrant victims of modern slavery from support and protection because they arrived without permission will help the traffickers in three main ways.

Firstly, information about cross-border trafficking will not reach the UK police. The modern slavery process gathers policing intelligence - under the Bill this key intelligence about cross border trafficking will no longer be collected.

Secondly, if victims of serious crime are not supported then it is less likely that they will have the confidence to come forward and hold perpetrators to account. Victims of slavery are the witnesses.

Thirdly, if victims of modern slavery are terrified of removal to face persecution at home or in Rwanda or are left in legal limbo then they are highly vulnerable to further exploitation and will be far easier for traffickers to groom and control.”

mobile.twitter.com/SqueakinglyJen/status/1633483064444592128

Does that sound like a solution to the massive problem of trafficking?

(Also I can’t find anywhere in this thread where anyone’s said people traffickers are providing a lovely, legal service. Plenty of the opposite though, for eg in my posts…)

LexMitior- interestingly the Tories have always maintained that the BBC are left wing despite current developments......

I am afraid I am a little confused as to what you mean.
I think you are saying that by fake asylum seekers you mean those whose claim is judged to be invalid.

How does anyone including the asylum seeker know their claim is not valid until they have made their claim? And since the UK operates a policy with the exception of Ukraine that claims must be made in the UK, people who wish to seek asylum in the UK have to do so in the UK. Therefore they have to travel to the UK. The method of travel has no bearing on whether the claim is or isn't valid.

Depends what you mean by ‘people supporting measures.’

I absolutely support measures to prevent the boat crossings.
The measures I support include putting in place systems whereby people can apply for asylum from elsewhere in the world, Afghanistan say. So they then have the paperwork in place to travel legally. This is not currently in place. See for example the translators left behind in Afghanistan by Britain when we pulled out, who now have no way at all to apply for asylum from where they are but who are in hiding because they helped us.

I do not support a system which does not allow someone to apply for asylum until they get to the UK, thereby forcing them to make dangerous crossings, and then dehumanising them as criminals when they do it.

Our trade deals with the EU and the Good Friday agreement depend on the EHCR.

Withdraw from that and there will be consequences for those agreements.

Then why do so many of their current policies along with their behaviour fit that charcterisation?

Modern slavery is the claim being used by Albanians.

You don't even see that well informed.

@Anklespraying- Have you lad a very sheltered life?

What is that characterisation?

They are though "extremist far right" to much of Mumsnet which is generally slightly to the left of Jeremy Corbyn....

These agreements that we do not apparently like are based on our own common law. English lawyers wrote them after the war.

It is shameful. These smugglers should be prosecuted. Simple. And there should be proper routes for asylum.

I don't want my own rights being undermined because Suella Braverman is too embarrassed to say that our asylum system is her own party's mess. And that she is so intemperate in her language that a football pundit can have a fair crack at her for being so and he is reprimanded by his employer.

These rights that everyone thinks are such a pain are ours. We gave them to the world and it's taken Sunak and Braverman about two seconds to wipe them out. Because they are too cheap to fund the Border service and the criminal justice systems to deal with the criminality.

Who on this thread is calling for open borders? Safe routes and resettlement schemes are not open borders. They’re more tightly controlled than the current small boat situation.

There’s no point shouting down an argument that isn’t even being made.