The Home Secretary is not telling the truth about rioters 'paying the price' ...

[jxpop665]

as it will be the choice of a jury whether or not the accused is found guilty. She is being a very dishonest politician pretending it is her choice.

There could be a significant situation as in the statue of Edward Colston case, that if sufficient people in a jury agree with the underlying motivations the jury may use jury equity to find the accused not guilty.

Given the purported motivation of failed immigration policy is a political issue for a significant proportion of the population, this is an unlikely be possible outcome.

YABU = The Home Secretary is right, they will pay the price.
YANBU = The Home Secretary should be honest as that choice is for a jury.

Part of the problem with the asylum seekers is the multiple appeals when asylum has been rejected, instigated by the rafts of human rights lawyers which WE are paying for.

Thank you.

No doubt the number of dinghy arrivals is small compared to those who come in through the ports and airports, and overstay, but I’m still not clear about why a claim to refugee status is an answer to cost.

TBH, the most embarrassing thing about this whole subject is that continental Europe is dealing with many times the numbers of immigrants we are, yet Mr Robinson’s crew start burning down libraries.

That would not be a problem if the Home Office applied the relevant legislation correctly when they first made the decision.

Can you honestly not see the difference between the Colston statue situation and what has been happening, there’s a huge difference that no one should have to explain to you and I am really pissed off you have brought this up, what a tenuous link to the current situation.

If the local Bristol paper is to be believed, last night a group of about 100 far right protesters went down to a hotel which houses asylum seekers where they were met by police and a far greater number of counter protestors who got wind of what that plan was and blocked the protesters from gaining access to the hotel .

https://x.com/TristanCorkPost/status/1819825753803911207

Here’s a bit of footage.

I’m as likely as anyone else to be called for Jury service on these Bristol cases if they end up in front of a jury, as is my DH and DC and there is absolutely no way on earth that if there is sufficient evidence presented that anyone of us would do anything other than vote to convict.

Yes - these are unaccompanied children - so in local authority care - we know how the process works ( or doesn’t).

You want the law to be “reformed” so burning down a Greggs and a police station isn’t illegal if you are doing it because you hate Muslims?

Good luck with that OP.

Suella Braverman is the child of asylum seekers, it doesn’t seem to have had any impact on her views. Christmas dinner must be interesting round at their house.

No. Many legal migrants come on visas.

Some irregular migrants do not attempt to claim asylum. They just try to melt into the background. It is difficult to estimate this number

Yes, I get that, and quite right too.

But I still don’t see how you know whether the claim is valid without money being spent on it. Or what’s to stop illegal immigrants making such claims.

It’s not a big deal. I was just curious about a PP’s statement that illegal immigrants have no recourse to public funds. I don’t dispute that, but it does seem to be a matter of semantics: if you’re judged an illegal immigrant presumably you’re deported.

I am not sure what part you are not understanding.

If some makes an asylum claim from the moment they make that claim up until the point at which a decision is made on their case they are behaving perfectly legally - they are not an illegal migrant. In the same way that one is not a criminal until one has been convicted of a criminal offense.

And if the claim is rejected then yes they will be detained and deported - but this can take time

Burning down a CAB is bordering on aggravated arson which is indictable only.

Even if it isn't aggravated arson the magistrates won't have sufficient sentencing powers- it deserves more than 6 months.

I hope they pay a heavy price

there is always a high court judge on duty overnight and over holidays but it won’t come to that level of judge

OK.

So the PP’s comment should have been “any immigrant who wishes to claim asylum is in fact a cost, up to the point when their claim is turned down, at which point they become an illegal immigrant and face deportation, and thereby cease to be eligible for any support”.

Not that the PP I’m thinking of said it, another poster did, but one can apparently add “there are also illegal immigrants who bypass the asylum process and melt into the country; but those numbers aren’t known”.

I assume the second group is much bigger than the first. Which, if true, makes the boat issue even more irrelevant.

@jxpop665
I don't understand what you're trying to achieve with this post.

Of course the Home Secretary does not make final decisions on convictions. Some cases will go to the Magistrates Courts, some will go to Crown, depending on the severity of each charge.

But at no point did Yvette Cooper say that she will be judge and jury herself, so why try and imply that she did?

I agree it's linked to the change in government but not for the reasons you seem to think.

These bonehead bigoted far right idiots are pretty pissed off Labour won, their hero Nigel Farage is not shaping up like they'd hope (too busy trying to court Trump). Already there's been over 100 arrests, Starmer is well used to this as DPP in 2011 when there was riots. Back then as DPP he kept courts open 24/7 to process offenders and allowed magistrates to pass longer and tougher sentences. Rapid riot prosecutions back then was an effective deterrent. Rioters knowing those on the streets with them were caught in 24 or 48 hours were put off.

When Braverman was Home Secretary she attacked magistrates and the courts for not being tougher on the pro-Palestinian marchers when... ummm... the Tory government was in charge.
So your post is all types of incorrect. I think

as it will be the choice of a jury whether or not the accused is found guilty

Quite clearly she is talking about prosecuting people and those found guilty paying the price. She would obviously not be interested in those found not guilty paying the price, because they have no price to pay as far as the law is concerned.

I want to know how many people fall for this nonsense.

The government of the days job is to protect the public from this occurring, i.e. ensuring society is content and that criminal behaviour is prevented.

In this case, rather than doing her job and ensuring it never gets to this stage, she is talking about something that she has no say in - its deflecting from her failure to protect the public.

Despite what was said about integrity, this government is just being dishonest like the previous one.

We don't need to get wrapped up into semantics, there are clearly a lot of angry people around and they have decided this is the right time to express that anger by violent protest - I feel the government should be being completely honest, solving the problem and not spouting meaningless rhetoric.

What exactly is she saying then if she's being 100% honest with her words? How is she so clear that every single person involved will pay the price?

IMHO, the consequences for these rioters will be exactly what you can expect from a Labour Government.

The 2011 riots led to 1,800 years of sentences being given out (this was what was reported a year later, so that number will be larger as cases were still ongoing).
The average custodial sentence was 16.8 months - more than four times the average term handed down by magistrates' courts for similar offences.
This was when Kier Starmer was head of the CPS, and given it was all so high profile, I'd assume he was at the very least supportive of the prosecutions.

Given the purported motivation of failed immigration policy is a political issue for a significant proportion of the population, this is an unlikely be possible outcome.

Correcting your bold claim of ‘significant proportion’ - not true at all.

Having professional links with Yvette Cooper, she is a very honest, plain speaking and work with integrity.

She will do her absolute best to hold these thugs to account. I've no doubt she will succeed

I don't think @jxpop665 will be happy until The Home Sectary rides into battle carrying a water cannon under each arm - I mean I'm not sure they understand governing

And the ones that are convicted, if sent to prison at all, will serve less than 40% of their sentence.

There will be barely any convictions, I doubt much will come of this at all tbh.

Unfortunately there is no space in prisons right now. And I mean, like, no space.

How do you suppose they should "solve the problem"? Which problem do you mean? The needless rioting? Or whatever undefined "cause" they are rioting over?
And why do you think locking up arsonists isn't protecting the public?

Ministers have said there is capacity in the prison system to deal with the rioters.