You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I do hope that she was tweeting to wish him a speedy recovery from dickitis.
Could be a ploy by Sunak, Suella's been foisted on him by the ERG so when he sacks her he can say it's the will of the people.
That's the best tweet I've seen in a while 👍
Mi6 seem to not be best pleased with her according to the bbc pre dating her current role
Ok, this thread needs resurrecting.
Anyone watched the short vid in the tweet below? She's being questioned by the Home Affairs Select Committee. People with a bit of empathy and intelligence and she completely crumbles.
Tying herself up in knots and then throwing a civil servant, ANY civil servant (heeellllpppp meeee!) under the bus.
Astonishing that she is/was a barrister. The obvious flaw in her logic and her gentle guide into her self made trap was a fellow Tory. I'm guessing he doesn't think much of her either.
https://mobile.twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1595374559523471368
She passed the bar exams but her experience and claims of involvementin various high profile cases has been thoroughly de-bunked by the people she claimed to have worked with and for.
She's a self-serving incompetent who is a proven liar with a track record to be ashamed of.
Vile.
That was beautiful to watch. 🙂
It's nice approach work by Tim Loughton, but a competent KC would have seen the trap coming. Which is the problem, really.
I wonder how many of the people screaming about 'illegals' actually realise the virtual impossibility of finding a legal route to asylum in the UK?
That was beautiful to watch.
Totally, they are were squirming under direct scrutiny of the system they've set up.
I got home this evening just as they were starting to play that out on Radio 4 PM. I had to sit in the van and listen to the end because they gave a clue about the content. FFS, I could see that mighty trap coming from the first question! I'm guessing that Tim Loughton isn't getting an invite to any foreign office Christmas receptions! 🤣
I don't know how she lives with herself, and Patel. Not a shred of - I was going to say human decency, but I think I'll go with humanity - between them.
a competent KC would have seen the trap coming. Which is the problem, really.
I had to check she was actually a KC, it was conferred due to her parliamentary role rather than any legal ability, she's just a bog standard barrister in reality
Here’s more from the same meeting. A thorough pants down thrashing
I had to check she was actually a KC, it was conferred due to her parliamentary role rather than any legal ability, she’s just a bog standard barrister in reality
A lot like Raab. He talks like he’s some sort of legal eagle but in reality he just made the tea in a law office.
If we created some (any) proper safe routes, would this then reduce how many feel the need to try any method to reach the UK?
It seems an obvious system to explore.... And yet in 12 years of power....
I just watched that clip. My god, she's absolutely hopeless! Evil, stupid, and incompetent.
I am off now to Fareham to slap every constituent in turn for voting her in. It's a shame that it has to come to this, but they all deserve it.
self-serving incompetent who is a proven liar with a track record to be ashamed of.
#justanotertorynexttuesday
It’s nice approach work by Tim Loughton, but a competent KC would have seen the trap coming.
I am not sure she didnt see it coming. Its just that it was impossible to evade the trap.
If someone is so unsporting as to point out there are basically no legal routes then how can you answer it without lying or just saying "there arent any and its deliberate, problem?".
Barristers who get into parliament get made KCs more or less automatically. I think the reason for it is to make it easier for them to re-establish a career if they lose their seat. Sweet.
If we created some (any) proper safe routes, would this then reduce how many feel the need to try any method to reach the UK?
Probably by a lot, and would also likely drive the people smugglers out of business, which they 'say' is the aim of trying to stop the small boats. Of course it's not, but they can't admit to just pandering to the racist wing of their supporters.
Barristers who get into parliament get made KCs more or less automatically
That got binned off back in the 90s.
Its only been kept for those who get one of the legal officer jobs eg she got it as attorney general and there are a couple of other positions.
It's a shame Braverman is so uninformed because in the scenario described, there are safe and legal routes to apply for entry clearance. It's quite staggering that she hasn't even grasped that basic information in the time she's been in charge, considering these issues seem to be what she is solely focused on.
would also likely drive the people smugglers out of business, which they ‘say’ is the aim of trying to stop the small boats.
I don't know how the "16yo orphan from an African country escaping a war zone & religious persecution" which Tim Loughton is referring to gets to make their application for asylum in the UK but I can't imagine that they would represent the sort of person targeted by people's smugglers. How many 16 year old orphans from a war zone can afford to pay people's smugglers?
As the current Home Secretary I think Braverman should also be challenged on the continued injustices concerning Shamima Begum. Not wanting to minimise Shamima Begum's appalling judgement as a 15 year old, even if she was possibly manipulated and trafficked, but dispite the fact that the last 3 Home Secretary have been British Asians the whole thing stinks of racism.
I can't imagine a similar outcome for a white Brit falling foul of UK law. Great Train Robber Ronnie Biggs wasn't stripped of his British nationality, in fact for decades British governments demanded that he should return to the UK to face justice. I don't see why it should be any different for Shamima Begum.
And how many young Albanian men can afford to pay people smugglers?
It’s a shame Braverman is so uninformed because in the scenario described, there are safe and legal routes to apply for entry clearance.
Which are?
I wonder how many of the people screaming about ‘illegals’ actually realise the virtual impossibility of finding a legal route to asylum in the UK?
I doubt if they care TBH,they would probably like that.
Which are?
Limited to a very few routes and countries, if I understood the committee recording properly. You need to be the right kind of refugee, obviously.
Which is why Loughton used an African country as an example and specifically stated not countries that do have a safe route.
In that case Bravermans answer should have been "we haven't set up safe routes for those countries because they don't need one, i.e. they do not have a case for asylum in this countries"
It’s a shame Braverman is so uninformed
I get the impression from politicians like Braverman and Raab that they are less interested in the actual day job, then by just holding the office, and the consequent power/importance that comes from that. These folks are self important, but shallow, Politics is a way to become important (and latterly rich presumably) without necessarily having to learn any skill that extends beyond Being prepared to be more a shit to your erstwhile colleagues in order to climb the greasy pole
I am off now to Fareham to slap every constituent in turn for voting her in. It’s a shame that it has to come to this, but they all deserve it.
Can you pop in on my parents? Apparently she's an 'excellent local mp'. I asked my mum if she'd looked at her voting record, which she hadn't - when I ran through it quickly, she changed her mind on her pretty quickly.
I can’t imagine that they would represent the sort of person targeted by people’s smugglers. How many 16 year old orphans from a war zone can afford to pay people’s smugglers?
I don't think you're cut out for a career in human trafficking
I get the impression from politicians like Braverman and Raab that they are less interested in the actual day job, then by just holding the office, and the consequent power/importance that comes from that.
This seems a fair judgement.
What's odd is that there are excellent MP's out there - yet being good at the day job doesn't seem a prerequisite for higher office in the current [s] government [/s] shambles.
What’s odd is that there are excellent MP’s out there
Are there? In the tory party?
In the scenario of the 16 year old orphan, they could potentially succeed under paragraphs 319x or 297, depending on the age and status of the UK based sibling. Even if they don't meet the criteria, they can then appeal on article 8 (and other) grounds and have their case heard by an independent immigration judge. Those routes aren't dependent on being from specific countries so nationality is immaterial. There are also family reunion routes for spouses and children of recognised refugees. So the routes do exist, not for everyone of course, and they do take time.
Whilst it is hard to say, Gove consistently comes across as knowing his brief. Might not like his policies but at least I don’t doubt his competence to do the work.
And #iagreewithernie that Begum is a wholly British problem. Too toxic for Braverman of course, but a serious politician would be doing something.
And if you a 16 year old are stuck in said country how do you find one of those routes, i.e. who brings you to the UK?
then appeal on article 8 (and other) grounds and have their case heard by an independent immigration judge
They have to get here first.
And as for orphans not being able to afford to pay the traffickers, try not to think for too long about who might sponsor a 16 year old and why. I’ll start you off with a few: indentured labour, sex work, organ removal (THBOR).
In the scenario of the 16 year old orphan, they could potentially succeed under paragraphs 319x or 297, depending on the age and status of the UK based sibling. Even if they don’t meet the criteria, they can then appeal on article 8 (and other) grounds and have their case heard by an independent immigration judge. Those routes aren’t dependent on being from specific countries so nationality is immaterial. There are also family reunion routes for spouses and children of recognised refugees. So the routes do exist, not for everyone of course, and they do take time.
Did the entire Tory MP / Home Secretary conversation totally pass you by, or are you been deliberately disingenuous?
Incorrect Kelvin, they don't have to get here first. There is an appeals process for such entry clearance applications. Whilst the applicant wouldn't be able to attend in person, their UK based family members would attend to give evidence.
Regarding who brings them to the UK, they are likely to be staying with a more distant relative, or a family friend/neighbor, or in a refugee camp etc. The relatives in the UK can appoint an immigration adviser and make travel arrangements on their behalf.
Intheborders, everything I've stated is factual. Whilst that orphan couldn't apply for asylum from overseas, they could apply to join their relative in the UK.
A reminder that the example was a 16 year old orphan with a sibling here… who applies for them within the UK? Why do you assume they have anyone to look after them back in the country they are fleeing?
Whilst that orphan couldn’t apply for asylum from overseas, they could apply to join their relative in the UK.
So actually you agree that in that scenario there is no legal route for that person to claim asylum
Whilst that orphan couldn’t apply for asylum from overseas, they could apply to join their relative in the UK.
Can you talk me through how they would do that. How do they apply, how do they know how to apply, can they even read/write english, are they in the middle of nowhere with no means of getting anywhere?
Doesn't sound very 'safe route' on the face of it does it?
Yes tj, that's correct, there is no legal route to apply for asylum from overseas other than the resettlement schemes for AFG, UKR and SYR. But there are legal routes to join relatives already here.
Saying there is a legal route in theory proves useless in practice if you have no means to use it, hence getting a 'package deal' from a trafficker would seem like the only option you can have.
I had thought of Buddhism as a more moral religion - but she's changed that opinion.
I had thought of Buddhism as a more moral religion
As with pretty much every religion there is sufficient material that you can find stuff you like and ignore the inconvenient bits.
Generally an arsehole wont have a road to Damascus moment but simply pat themselves on the back after finding some convenient passages to excuse and possibly justify their actions.
Karma will get her - she will come back as a cockroach or similar
Whilst there are obviously practical difficulties in making such applications, that doesn't make them theoretical only. If they have a relative in the UK, they can appoint the advisor for them. They'd need to make arrangements for the applicant to get to an application centre. Sometimes charities working in refugee camps etc will make applications on their behalf. Sometimes the UK relatives will be able to visit them if they're in a safe country to help them with the process. More often than not they will be supported by another relative or family friend. Depending what resources the person has or what country they're in it could be practically impossible.
Regarding who brings them to the UK, they are likely to be staying with a more distant relative, or a family friend/neighbor, or in a refugee camp etc.
Impressed with your depth of knowledge on this imaginery 16 year old.
Whilst there are obviously practical difficulties in making such applications, that doesn’t make them theoretical only.
Which begs the question why didn't that point form part of Braverman's answer?
Did clients really pay Braverman good money for legal advice earlier in her career?
Depending what resources the person has or what country they’re in it could be practically impossible.
Yes, which is my point...
Pondo 😂
Yes Ernie, that's what baffled me. She could have at least mentioned that it is possible to apply from overseas to join relatives in the UK.
Yes Kerley, not everyone in desperate circumstances will be able to make an application. And if their relative succeeded via people smugglers, then they will often make the same choice.
I'm not arguing that the system is adequate or fair, just pointing out that legal routes do exist for those with relatives already in the UK.
I’m not arguing that the system is adequate or fair, just pointing out that legal routes do exist for those with relatives already in the UK.
Not to claim asylum which is what this is all about
TJ,I only watched this clip which is about joining a sibling and not about the person applying for asylum for themselves from overseas. I assumed that's what everyone else is referring to.
https://mobile.twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1595379341218942977
Tory MP Tim Loughton asks Suella Braverman how an asylum seeker from East Africa could apply for asylum in the UK.
He makes it quite clear he is talking about someone seeking asylum who wants to get asylum in the UK because he has a sibling here
I only watched this clip which is about joining a sibling and not about the person applying for asylum for themselves from overseas.
He makes it quite clear he is talking about someone seeking asylum who wants to get asylum in the UK because he has a sibling here
Dancing on the head of a pin but he doesn't specifically say 'asylum seeking' in his preamble, he details circumstances that clearly point to it without using the words. But there's no confusion because in her response:
From 47s
Bravermann: "Well, we have an asylum system and people can put in applications for asylum"
Loughton: "How would I do that?"
Bravermann...... etc (you know the rest)
If that's meant to be a defence, that Loughton only actually mentioned travel it's a pretty weak one
I should have learned from others not to get drawn into a discussion with TJ! If you listen to the question actually posed, he does not ask how the person can claim asylum from overseas, he asks how he can join his sibling who is in the UK legally. Unfortunately the caption they used misrepresents what he actually asked.
If he'd asked, a person is overseas, can they claim asylum in the UK? the simple answer is no. But that's not what he asked.
Nope, listen to the rest or my short transcript. In his response to Braverman he specifically asks how he would do that, 'that' being "we have an asylum system and people can put in applications for asylum"
God this is exhausting so I'll make it my last contribution. I was referring only to the question he initially posed, to make the point that if Braverman was actually knowledgeable she could have answered properly and provided details of the available routes for that hypothetical scenario.
I appreciate it then develops to how do they claim asylum from overseas, but that wasn't the initial question.
Lesson learned for me, don't join in the discussion 🤦
Right, so, we're all agreed that they can't claim asylum without first getting here... now to your other route...
A reminder that the example was a 16 year old orphan with a sibling here… who applies for them within the UK? Why do you assume they have anyone to look after them back in the country they are fleeing?
You've pointed us to a route that looks at first glance to rely entirely on third parties acting on behalf of the child and their sibling both in the UK and in the country being fled. Will the 16 year old REALLY have access to this route? How long would it take? What could happen to them while they wait it out? Who keeps them safe? Why wouldn't they do everything they can to escape and be with their brother/sister? A genuine and actually usable safe route is needed, rather than hiding behind home office bureaucracy to keep them out.
He doesn’t sp3cifically state the word asylum, but he does say his hypothetical 16yo is being persecuted in their own country.
Kelvin, as above, it's not a quick process. It could take a year to get an initial decision then months more for an appeal if needed. So it's a long time to wait in desperate circumstances living alone or with a neighbor, family friend or extended relative in a refugee camp or elsewhere. So the appeal of the clandestine routes is obvious. Plus, it clearly has a very high success rate using the current small boat method. Why wait and potentially waste your money on an application which gets refused when you can pay people smugglers to fast track you?
But lots of people do still apply and succeed under the legal routes.
Plus, it clearly has a very high success rate using the current small boat method.
Not for children fleeing African states it isn’t. Lives are lost or destroyed for most before they get anywhere near the English Channel. For those travelling so far, especially unaccompanied minors, it is a desperate dangerous route that we push people into by removing and complicating all other routes.
But lots of people do still apply and succeed under the legal routes.
Apply for what, asylum? From within an African state? While under age? Not really.
You're pushing against an open door Kelvin. I'm not saying that it's not dangerous. Obviously huge numbers of lives have been lost in the med and elsewhere (I should have made clear I was referring to the channel crossing stage rather than the whole journey). Nor am I saying that the current approach and availablity of legal routes are adequate for a nation like the UK.
No, I wasn't referring to applying for asylum from abroad, I was referring to routes for children overseas to join relatives in the UK. As I've stated many times above, you can't claim asylum from overseas.
tjagain
Full MemberKarma will get her – she will come back as a cockroach or similar
She already has tbh
I had thought of Buddhism as a more moral religion
You might want to explain that to the Rohingya.
You might want to explain that to the Rohingya.
Fair point. The actions of repressive governments frequently fail to accord with the majority religious belief in their country; there's a lot of nationalism, racist and politics there. I don't know what ordinary Buddhist citizens think of the genocide. It's not quite the same as a self identified practicing Buddhist in a non-Buddhist country (so not driven by conformism) acting in the way Braverman does.
She already has tbh
If ever we needed a Like button
. It’s not quite the same as a self identified practicing Buddhist in a non-Buddhist country (so not driven by conformism) acting in the way Braverman does.
That's the weird thing about it for me, as far as I am aware Braverman is a convert to Buddhism - a Western form of Buddhism. I don't doubt their authenticity as Buddhists btw.
If she had been brought up by Buddhist parents and still identified as Buddhist you might not be totally surprised if she wasn't the best example.
But that's not the case, presumably she actively embraced Buddhism at some point, and apparently still does.
Having said that the founder of the Triratna Buddhist Order that Braverman is a member of was accused of some pretty serious sexual abuse allegations.
Something which I am loathed to draw attention to because I know a few Triratna Buddhists, including several women, and they are all truly lovely and kind people.
But it is a reminder that all humans should be judged as individuals, not by their race, creed, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, etc, etc
Or "by the content of their character", to paraphrase the great Martin Luther King.
She already has tbh
Harsh on cockroaches
"The Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, says her heartfelt thoughts are with all those involved. Those words ring utterly hollow when she has spent her time as Home Secretary vilifying and demonising the very people she now feigns sympathy with. She should resign in disgrace.
PCS wrote to the home secretary only last week providing her with a ready-made solution to these dangerous crossings".
Her supporters will regard this as a result, not a tragedy.
There’s something uniquely dispiriting about her crocodile tears yesterday, given that she and Sunak (and Patel before her) - all the children of immigrants - spend their time demonising these people as little better than vermin. All for their own personal political gain.
It’s an obscenity. Their casual inhumanity and complete absence of compassion really is disgusting to witness
The fact that they’re so enthusiastically pulling the ladder up behind themselves makes them even worse than the Farages of this world IMHO
I had thought of Buddhism as a more moral religion – but she’s changed that opinion.
Know your place, be good and you may have better luck next time around? She can probably square it.
be good
Yes, there's quite a lot of that in Buddhism, even against animals.
And there is the requirement for metta bhavana, which is the Buddhist meditative practice of cultivating loving-kindness toward all sentient beings.
But no, I have no idea how Braverman squares her religious requirement to show loving-kindness towards all human beings, including those which are considered "difficult", with the obvious lack of humanity which she appears to show as Home Secretary.
crocodile tears
Easy when you have made a conscious decision to leave your core human decency behind in order to progress up the ladder. My contempt for them is total.
But no, I have no idea how Braverman squares her religious requirement to show loving-kindness towards all human beings, including those which are considered “difficult”, with the obvious lack of humanity which she appears to show as Home Secretary.
There's a few "Christian" Home Secretarys have struggled with that, to be fair.