In the news

I honestly believe they think it will work, and trying to make it work.

They don’t, Ed.

They want an asylum backlog to stir up the right wing racists they rely on for votes. They’ve purposefully moved those seeking asylum out of local authority housing and into hotels so they are visible. They’ve barred them from working so that they are hanging around all day with nothing to do so they are visible. They’ve slowed down processing asylum claims so there are more asylum seekers, who are mainly young men, who are visible.

It’s a deeply cynical attempt to stir up hatred amongst their base. They are utter, utter cunts and we need to get rid of them.

They've actively stopped processing asylum seekers under the guise of training but really it's so that the backlog becomes a bigger problem they can use to appeal to racists.

They've actively stopped processing asylum seekers under the guise of training but really it's so that the backlog becomes a bigger problem they can use to appeal to racists.

They've put loads in a few hotels round here and shut the hotels down to the public. Local racists have gone mad for it. It's been great at 'othering' the asylum seekers.

They’ve slowed down processing asylum claims so there are more asylum seekers, who are mainly young men, who are visible.

I saw another, related, take on this. The Rwanda scheme is very expensive so if you want to make it "value for money" you need to slow down the existing asylum process so that also becomes very expensive and the Rwanda option becomes the cheaper option.

They learnt that from Australia unfortunately

This whole thing seems barmy to be. Aren’t we crying out for workers in various sectors. There’s a ready made work force literally risking death to get into the country. They just want to work and be happy and get away from the shit that’s going on in their country of origin. Why isn’t Nutella doing that.

That is where you are wrong, they don't want to work, they just want to blow us all up.....

And if they aren't trying hard enough to do that, then it is evidence they are lazy and trying to sponge off the taxpayer...

Sunak says he is going to take it to the Supreme Court. Assume it will be chucked out there too? Surely it can't get through there?

Let's hope it doesn't

The article I read said it could go either way, let's hope the government loses.

It was always going to go the Supreme Court, this is just a step on the way.

The Rwanda scheme is very expensive so if you want to make it "value for money" you need to slow down the existing asylum process so that also becomes very expensive and the Rwanda option becomes the cheaper option.

That's not a hard stretch for the imagination, even if it's not the intention.

One of our local hotels was taken over at the end of April and will be accommodating 50 young men for the foreseeable with a room each.

The hotel had pool and gym.
4 function rooms for +300 with several weddings planned and Christmas/new years mostly booked.
Licenced restaurants.
Could accommodate 200.

Most of the staff were given short notice and planned events were cancelled.
Even with much of the place mothballed and minimal staff, I can't it being a cheap solution to offset the loss of income at 25% occupancy.

Any link to that? It'd be beyond dreadful if they won.

And then can the appeal to the Lords?

High Court decisions (usually a single judge) can be appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Court of Appeal decisions (usually three judges) can be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court decisions (usually five judges) cannot be appealed.

This is from the 'live' story feed on BBC news website:

The Rwanda policy is not dead yet

Joe Inwood

At the court

In February the home secretary said it was her “dream” to see people on a deportation flight to Rwanda.

Well, today’s ruling was a rude awakening for Suella Braverman, as the Court of Appeal declared that this flagship government policy was unlawful.

By a majority of two to one, some of the country’s top judges ruled that Rwanda was not a “safe third country” and that there was a significant risk to anyone sent there.

So, does this mean the Rwanda policy is dead?

In short, not yet. The government has until 6 July to submit a written appeal against the ruling - something Rushi Sunak has just confirmed will happen - a move that will see the case sent to the UK Supreme Court.

What happens there is anyone’s guess. But given that the two previous courts have given conflicting verdicts, defeat for the government is not guaranteed.

That certainly seemed the opinion of charities speaking outside the court - who welcomed today’s decision, but were clearly aware their fight was not over.

The stakes are high for all sides. For the government, Suella Braverman’s dream is at risk.

For the charities bringing this case, the Rwanda policy represents their worst nightmare.

@Light_EDDed

Aren’t we crying out for workers in various sectors. There’s a ready made work force literally risking death to get into the country. They just want to work and be happy and get away from the shit that’s going on in their country of origin

But the forrins want to steal are jobs, they’re not interested in jobs they don’t have to steal.

Meanwhile in France, riots in Paris.
Pretty tragic shooting of a 17 year old, of Algerian descent, igniting long standing tensions in Paris suburbs.

17 year old with poor school attendance, working as a delivery driver. Driving off at a traffic shop behind the wheel of what looks like an Mercedes A class AMG... Bit suspicious.
Not surprised the car was stopped, no excuse for shooting him dead though.

Glad that British police don't have standard issue firearms.

Sounds like the plot of a sequel to La Haine. Awful stuff.

I haven’t had a chance to watch the film, but does seem like it.
The tension between the youth and migrant populations and the police/authorities seems to be deeply ingrained and far worse than what we have here.

Can’t imagine our shitshow of a government dealing with this in a sensitive or effective way. Maybe charter more flights…

Almost as if the good guy with a gun was a flawed principle
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66061166

Even something as mad as all migrants physically fit and able to join the armed forces for basic training. I’m sure the short fall for army recruitment is in the thousands. Accomadation, wages, learn a trade. Seems like a reasonable idea.

We should be welcoming migrants with open arms, not shipping them off to Africa, as a punishment for trying to find a better life.

Seems like a reasonable idea.

Or, mandatory conscription, but only for a certain type of person. Not great, really, if you are concerned about ‘othering’ folks.

Is it a gun issue, this one (other than by association)? I read it as a police authority versus responsibilities one - as in, they have all the authority, and none of the responsibility or accountability.