What is that "mate" of mine Sadiq Khan trying to achieve ?

 

You lost you demented little cretin, get over it and concentrate on your job you terrorist sympathiser.

3 hours ago, Sweep said:

amended for accuracy 😃

I'll amend it back then. 

It's not about working hard but about working smart. That sidelines most of Labours front bench then.

 

1 hour ago, kent_white said:

Are we all in agreement that this is a good idea. Apart from @Cheese obviously 😉

Why the fuck can't they export that contrary cunt then? Talk about a win-win.

1 hour ago, Cheese said:

I think it's a good idea. 🤷‍♂️

Sorry Cheese. I'm just conditioned to expect you to take up a diametrically opposed position to anything anybody posts on here! 😉😁

2 hours ago, kent_white said:

Are we all in agreement that this is a good idea. Apart from @Cheese obviously 😉

Basic common sense, and begs the question as to why it hasn't been done earlier. 

Perhaps the looming shadow of the ECHR and blood sucking lawyers, like something from Harry Potter, makes such rules more difficult to impose.

Questions as to whether some countries will have them back too.

Philip raised the possibility that some of those convicted may escape punishment back "home", which may not sit well with victims. Whilst I get that, so long as they're not here, and never can return, then maybe thats for the best.

Ultimately though, like so much of all this, until it's implemented and working, we won't know how good it is.

31 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

 

Questions as to whether some countries will have them back too.

Philip raised the possibility that some of those convicted may escape punishment back "home", which may not sit well with victims. Whilst I get that, so long as they're not here, and never can return, then maybe thats for the best.

 

I guess the big issue is if the country of the offender actually wants to take them back, they may well just refuse, and then what?  -  and before anybody says "Tough shit, well just deport them there anyway" we, as things stand (unless I've missed it) don't want Shamima Begum back over here, hence she's festering away in some refugee camp or other.

i agree with you, that I'd rather they just weren't here, but I have no doubts that even though repatriating wrong 'uns would be great, it'll no doubt end up being made far more complicated/expensive than it needs to be

2 hours ago, kent_white said:

Are we all in agreement that this is a good idea. Apart from @Cheese obviously 😉

It was a good idea in 2014 when Mrs. May introduced it and it’s good news now that it’s being expanded. Good to see Australia in that new list. Send the buggers back!

4 minutes ago, BobyBrno said:

It was a good idea in 2014 when Mrs. May introduced it and it’s good news now that it’s being expanded. Good to see Australia in that new list. Send the buggers back!

I agree. And also good to see that the current Government aren't scared of resurrecting old legislation if it seems like a good idea. 

Too much of that already in politics. I wonder why it wasn't implemented (or was removed presumably) by the last lot though? 

Need to do more reading on it! 

Maybe it was, though there were only 5 countries.

Not necessarily a lot of crims to make a song and dance over.

It may also be the case that the authorities prefer to have some of them incarcerated to ensure punishment. 

Who knows.

Ultimately though, if removal of these people is so difficult, then it js vital that the vetting and overall levels of migration are reduced.

Also heard today, that some of these migrants coming here to work in the care sector may be doing so under a ruse. They get their visa, do a bit of work in that area, then leave and essentially disappear into the system. 

If this is true, then it is yet another example of our system being so unfit for purpose.

got me thinking

what if Australia, Kenya, India and Bulgaria decide they don't want them?

it's nice they take them off us, but they don't have to (do they?)

Presumably we've been given assurances by the named countries for it to be announced

I'd have thought the ECHR might prove an obstacle but they must be confident it won't be

2 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

Presumably we've been given assurances by the named countries for it to be announced

aye but what is in it for them - taking in migrants no one else wants?

1 hour ago, kent_white said:

I agree. And also good to see that the current Government aren't scared of resurrecting old legislation if it seems like a good idea. 

Too much of that already in politics. I wonder why it wasn't implemented (or was removed presumably) by the last lot though? 

Need to do more reading on it! 

It hasn’t been resurrected, it’s an ongoing scheme but there have been obstacles. The same obstacles are still there. From Sky News website.

‘The "deport now, appeal later" policy was first introduced when Baroness Theresa May was home secretary in 2014 as part of the Conservative government's hostile environment policy to try and reduce migration.

It saw hundreds of people returned to a handful of countries like Kenya and Jamaica under Section 94B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, added in via amendment.

In 2017, a Supreme Court effectively stopped the policy from being used after it was challenged on the grounds that appealing from abroad was not compliant with human rights.

1 minute ago, Zico said:

aye but what is in it for them - taking in migrants no one else wants?

I wouldn't rule out the possibility we've agreed to pay

26 minutes ago, BobyBrno said:

It hasn’t been resurrected, it’s an ongoing scheme but there have been obstacles. The same obstacles are still there. From Sky News website.

‘The "deport now, appeal later" policy was first introduced when Baroness Theresa May was home secretary in 2014 as part of the Conservative government's hostile environment policy to try and reduce migration.

It saw hundreds of people returned to a handful of countries like Kenya and Jamaica under Section 94B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, added in via amendment.

In 2017, a Supreme Court effectively stopped the policy from being used after it was challenged on the grounds that appealing from abroad was not compliant with human rights.

So what's changed then?

They must be aware of this. 

Are they just putting out a placating policy that can't work, or are they intending going head to head with the courts?

Maybe Lord "Harmer" will secretly be telling his lawyer mates to simply wait a while, then kibosh the whole thing.

 

29 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

I wouldn't rule out the possibility we've agreed to pay

it's all I can think of

but still

if folk weren't willing to take them, we'd either be stuck with them, or, send them back to their own country

so why not just do the latter

or

encourage more migrant to just head straight to bulgaria or india and save us some cash

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly4gjmg7nvo

This will go down well.

10 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

So what's changed then?

They must be aware of this. 

Are they just putting out a placating policy that can't work, or are they intending going head to head with the courts?

Maybe Lord "Harmer" will secretly be telling his lawyer mates to simply wait a while, then kibosh the whole thing.

 

I think the only concrete aspect of it so far is the intention to change the law so that people can be deported immediately rather than having to serve a minimum period of time in prison first

8 minutes ago, Zico said:

it's all I can think of

but still

if folk weren't willing to take them, we'd either be stuck with them, or, send them back to their own country

so why not just do the latter

or

encourage more migrant to just head straight to bulgaria or india and save us some cash

That's what it is

It's countries taking back their own citizens pending appeal, with the appeal to be heard from that country via video link

Do we have to take back CDS 'gangsters' and thai nonces?

This is a good article by Andrew Marr about all the stuff Labour are actually doing, while everyone just seems to want to rant and rave about migrants.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2025/07/britains-decline-is-as-much-intellectual-as-political

8 minutes ago, Cheese said:

This is a good article by Andrew Marr about all the stuff Labour are actually doing, while everyone just seems to want to rant and rave about migrants.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2025/07/britains-decline-is-as-much-intellectual-as-political

I like Andrew Marr, he's one of only a few journalists I pay attention to, as I like to think he's pretty centrist

45 minutes ago, Cheese said:

This is a good article by Andrew Marr about all the stuff Labour are actually doing, while everyone just seems to want to rant and rave about migrants.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2025/07/britains-decline-is-as-much-intellectual-as-political

Sir Keir just gets on with stuff. Largely brushes off the bullshit and screeching.

That doesn’t mean migrants aren’t an issue.

It’s possible for 2 things to be happening at once.

47 minutes ago, Cheese said:

This is a good article by Andrew Marr about all the stuff Labour are actually doing, while everyone just seems to want to rant and rave about migrants.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2025/07/britains-decline-is-as-much-intellectual-as-political

you have young children and a low income you may already be using one of the first tranche of 750 breakfast clubs, or you might be near a Best Start family hub – a one-stop shop for early-years parents, into which the government has put £500m, opening up to 1,000 by 2028. These will affect the least privileged families most; so, you won’t read about them on the front pages of most newspapers.”

 

No shit it’s not on the front pages. How many schools are there in the U.K.? 750 doesn’t make a dent and if it was such a good scheme why wait 3 years to add another 250? 

8 minutes ago, royal white said:

you have young children and a low income you may already be using one of the first tranche of 750 breakfast clubs, or you might be near a Best Start family hub – a one-stop shop for early-years parents, into which the government has put £500m, opening up to 1,000 by 2028. These will affect the least privileged families most; so, you won’t read about them on the front pages of most newspapers.”

 

No shit it’s not on the front pages. How many schools are there in the U.K.? 750 doesn’t make a dent and if it was such a good scheme why wait 3 years to add another 250? 

It was reported heavily at the time.

The criticism was that firstly, it was only a few schools. From the other point of view, folk were saying that it's the parents' responsibility to feed their children.

Certainly no need to roll it out for everyone- that will just add to those that can't be bothered. 

Can see both view points; if the nation wishes to offer the carrot, then a bit of stick isn't without merit- maybe giving the meals means parents should have to attend the school, maybe once or twice a week to get involved, and learn how to prepare food.

21 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

It was reported heavily at the time.

The criticism was that firstly, it was only a few schools. From the other point of view, folk were saying that it's the parents' responsibility to feed their children.

 

It is, can't afford to feed them, then don't have them. Too many poor people get a free pass with shit like this