Suella Braverman asks if UN refugee rules are fit for modern age

[Nearly Sane]

... Or rather beats the dull monotonous drum of xenophobia, again.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66919416

[jeremyp]

... Or rather beats the dull monotonous drum of xenophobia, again.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66919416

It's a straw man argument. The Refugee doesn't say you can't be sent back if you fear discrimination. It says you can't be sent back if you fear for your life or freedom.

[Aruntraveller]

Meanwhile in the real world.

[Aruntraveller]

And the ever-excellent John Crace on Sue-Ellen:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/26/smirking-suella-trashes-70-years-of-human-rights-in-30-minutes

"She has very limited bandwidth"

[SqueakyVoice]

There are lots of charities that can receive gift aid with any money donated to them (by British taxpayers paying tax etc etc...).
Try, Stonewall, www.stonewall.org.uk , or
care4calais.org .
There may be others as well. The more money is taken away from this corrupt, devisive "government" the better.

[Nearly Sane]

There are lots of charities that can receive gift aid with any money donated to them (by British taxpayers paying tax etc etc...).
Try, Stonewall, www.stonewall.org.uk , or
care4calais.org .
There may be others as well. The more money is taken away from this corrupt, devisive "government" the better.

Given Stonewall is anti women and homophobic, no chance of money from me.

[SqueakyVoice]

Given Stonewall is anti women and homophobic, no chance of money from me.

I'm  not sure why you think that?
This is the first sentence from their 'What we stand for'

At Stonewall, we stand for lesbian, gay, bi, trans, queer, questioning and ace (LGBTQ+) people everywhere. We imagine a world where all LGBTQ+ people are free to be themselves and we can live our lives to the full.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm  not sure why you think that?
This is the first sentence from their 'What we stand for'

Because it fights against womens single sex slaces, and thinks that lesbian groups should not be able to exclude men who identify as women.

There's a chunky thread

https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15994.0


And here are a couple of articles about it



https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/sep/15/lgb-alliance-co-founder-breaks-down-in-court-when-asked-to-define-lesbian

https://archive.vn/a1siG

[SqueakyVoice]

Because it [Stonewall] fights against womens single sex slaces, and thinks that lesbian groups should not be able to exclude men who identify as women.
...

https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15994.0


https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/sep/15/lgb-alliance-co-founder-breaks-down-in-court-when-asked-to-define-lesbian

https://archive.vn/a1siG

NS,
I've read the first page of the thread, but not all of it. The guardian article does mention Stonewall  but not much. I am concerned  that this is from the article

LGB Alliance contests that it is promoting the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual people, based on its position that there are only two sexes and that gender is a social construct, and rejecting the decision of most LGBTQ+ organisations to move towards a more interchangeable use of the words sex and gender. Harris said her organisation was created to protect children from a “dangerous and confusing gender-identity ideology”.

Sound like LGB are starting a Terf war to me ('think of the /children/).

Anyway, not all charities are fighting about women or LGBTQ+ rights.
Try RNLI or ActionAid, both accept donations and receive  gift aid. There may be many others but I haven't  looked them all up. As I said before, the more money  that is taken off this 'government' the better.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,
I've read the first page of the thread, but not all of it. The guardian article does mention Stonewall  but not much. I am concerned  that this is from the article  Sound like LGB are starting a Terf war to me ('think of the /children/).

Anyway, not all charities are fighting about women or LGBTQ+ rights.
Try RNLI or ActionAid, both accept donations and receive  gift aid. There may be many others but I haven't  looked them all up. As I said before, the more money  that is taken off this 'government' the better.

You're concerned that someone might be worried abiut children?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

NS,
I've read the first page of the thread, but not all of it. The guardian article does mention Stonewall  but not much. I am concerned  that this is from the article  Sound like LGB are starting a Terf war to me ('think of the /children/).

Not a war - just concern that many organisations seem to be unaware that Equality legislation allows them to bar people self-identifying as women from having access to single-sex spaces based on similar reasons as to why biological men are barred from female single-sex spaces - even though most men are not considered criminals.

The concern about men who identify as women having access to female single sex spaces could be based on this report https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/ presented to House of Commons Women & Equality Select Committee on the high sex offence rates amongst male prisoners who identify as trans.

A study between 1973-2003 includes Ministry Of Justice stats that show a high proportion of sex offenders - 76 of the 129 male-born prisoners identifying as transgender (not counting any with GRCs) have at least 1 conviction of sexual offence. This includes 36 convictions for rape and 10 for attempted rape. These are clearly male type crimes (rape is defined as penetration with a penis).

Sex Offence Rates

76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison = 16.8%

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It's a straw man argument. The Refugee doesn't say you can't be sent back if you fear discrimination. It says you can't be sent back if you fear for your life or freedom.

Does the Home Office have any evidence for this statement by Suella Braverman?

She said: "As case law has developed, what we have seen in practice is an interpretive shift away from 'persecution', in favour of something more akin to a definition of 'discrimination'.

"The practical consequence of which has been to expand the number of those who may qualify for asylum, and to lower the threshold for doing so."

[Aruntraveller]

I sincerely hope the cold-hearted, stone-faced person who is our home secretary watched the opening item on the ITV news this evening about the treatment of gay people in Uganda. As they are at risk for their lives from their own government I think that qualifies as slightly more than "discrimination". Perhaps she could organise an airlift. Or does this government only arrange those for dogs?

[Nearly Sane]

If Sunak keeps her in post, then he's supporting her views.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66964607

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Suella Braverman is not wrong in her view that some people game the system and make-up stories to support their application as a refugee. This is an open secret in the Sri Lankan community. So many know people who have been advised by lawyers and acquaintances who have already gamed the system on how to exaggerate or lie, or people seeking asylum have been advised to rip up passports and ID documents before reaching the UK eg on the plane to the UK and to claim they fled their home without ID etc etc.

I remember one chap I came across had assumed his brother’s identity at UK Passport control (not entirely sure why - can’t remember the details) after having ripped up his passport and disposing of it on the plane and having ripped his shirt and put soap in his eyes to look like he was crying and agitated - he got asylum but his original entry story into the UK was causing some confusion for KYC purposes when he opened a limited company as once he got asylum as his brother he had then legally changed his name by deed poll back to his real name.

That’s not to say there aren’t plenty of genuine cases but there are also lots of people gaming the system. Difficult to say what proportion of those applications for asylum are people gaming the system as questioning people’s stories are often considered racism or bigotry - bit like some of the reactions in the trans debate -  asking questions or straying from the orthodoxy result in attempts to paint you as a bigot. If I have come across people admitting they gamed the system, Suella Braverman no doubt has come across many more people gaming the system in her line of work.

[Aruntraveller]

Suella Braverman is not wrong in her view that some people game the system and make-up stories to support their application as a refugee. This is an open secret in the Sri Lankan community. So many know people who have been advised by lawyers and acquaintances who have already gamed the system on how to exaggerate or lie, or people seeking asylum have been advised to rip up passports and ID documents before reaching the UK eg on the plane to the UK and to claim they fled their home without ID etc etc.

I remember one chap I came across had assumed his brother’s identity at UK Passport control (not entirely sure why - can’t remember the details) after having ripped up his passport and disposing of it on the plane and having ripped his shirt and put soap in his eyes to look like he was crying and agitated - he got asylum but his original entry story into the UK was causing some confusion for KYC purposes when he opened a limited company as once he got asylum as his brother he had then legally changed his name by deed poll back to his real name.

That’s not to say there aren’t plenty of genuine cases but there are also lots of people gaming the system. Difficult to say what proportion of those applications for asylum are people gaming the system as questioning people’s stories are often considered racism or bigotry - bit like some of the reactions in the trans debate -  asking questions or straying from the orthodoxy result in attempts to paint you as a bigot. If I have come across people admitting they gamed the system, Suella Braverman no doubt has come across many more people gaming the system in her line of work.

If they are "gaming the system" why isn't she as home secretary ensuring that applicants are processed in a timely manner so that they can be deported if necessary instead of paying huge hotel/barge costs, and why indulge in dog whistles to US rightwing nutjobs instead of doing your fucking job?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If they are "gaming the system" why isn't she as home secretary ensuring that applicants are processed in a timely manner so that they can be deported if necessary instead of paying huge hotel/barge costs, and why indulge in dog whistles to US rightwing nutjobs instead of doing your fucking job?

Sure, she’s playing politics- it’s part of the game many politicians and media and voters play where instead of looking into the nuanced details of any position they trade in soundbites because many voters can be manipulated by soundbites into knee-jerk reactions.

No idea why successive Home Offices are useless at processing asylum cases - I haven’t looked into the ins and outs of what is involved. ETA: No doubt this way of doing things generates income and employment for a lot of people involved in the asylum system and it would be difficult and expensive to change the creaking system. I have direct experience of how inefficient HMRC is and lots of their employees seem to have no clue what they are supposed to be doing, some of the tax legislation makes no sense as it’s been changed piecemeal so isn’t always consistent on a practical level. Maybe the UK immigration system is equally inefficient and it would be expensive to change. And until we have AI doing the work the system relies on people, who often don’t seem to care if they don’t do their jobs in a timely manner.

But people lying and lawyers trying every avenue of appeal by stretching the truth because people have aspirations to a better life isn’t exactly some new idea or piece of information surely? It’s just the way the world works. It’s about what you can get people to believe rather than about the actual truth.

[Nearly Sane]

Sure, she’s playing politics- it’s part of the game many politicians and media and voters play where instead of looking into the nuanced details of any position they trade in soundbites because many voters can be manipulated by soundbites into knee-jerk reactions.

No idea why successive Home Offices are useless at processing asylum cases - I haven’t looked into the ins and outs of what is involved. ETA: No doubt this way of doing things generates income and employment for a lot of people involved in the asylum system and it would be difficult and expensive to change the creaking system. I have direct experience of how inefficient HMRC is and lots of their employees seem to have no clue what they are supposed to be doing, some of the tax legislation makes no sense as it’s been changed piecemeal so isn’t always consistent on a practical level. Maybe the UK immigration system is equally inefficient and it would be expensive to change. And until we have AI doing the work the system relies on people, who often don’t seem to care if they don’t do their jobs in a timely manner.

But people lying and lawyer’s trying every avenue of appeal by stretching the truth because people have aspirations to a better life isn’t exactly some new idea or piece of information surely? It’s just the way the world works. It’s about what you can get people to believe rather than about the actual truth.

So she's shite at her job, and happy to lie about it.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

So she's shite at her job, and happy to lie about it.

Seems to be the traditional way of successive governments on how to “manage” the Home Office - that assessment applies to her, her predecessors from the Tory and Labour governments and the inefficient and ineffective Civil Service - any candidates you can suggest who wouldn’t do the same shite job?

[Nearly Sane]

Seems to be the traditional way of successive governments on how to “manage” the Home Office - that assessment applies to her, her predecessors from the Tory and Labour governments and the inefficient and ineffective Civil Service - any candidates you can suggest who wouldn’t do the same shite job?

I have some lint in my pocket. It's incapable of lying.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I have some lint in my pocket. It's incapable of lying.

Sounds good - let me know if the lint decides to stand for election as an MP or applies to join the Civil Service.

My experience of the UK government and the Civil Service and in many parts of the world including the UK is that people in general, at various levels of responsibility, make excuses for themselves for not following processes, not updating their knowledge and skill, missing deadlines, doing sub-standard work and generally perpetuating a culture of incompetence.

Even if there are a few competent people carrying out their responsibilities or delivering, they still have to rely on incompetent people who either don't deliver on the bits that they are responsible for or through their sheer incompetence undo much of the progress that the competent people have made.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If they are "gaming the system" why isn't she as home secretary ensuring that applicants are processed in a timely manner so that they can be deported if necessary instead of paying huge hotel/barge costs, and why indulge in dog whistles to US rightwing nutjobs instead of doing your fucking job?

I had a quick look into why the Home Office is such a mess and it appears the current levels of incompetency is fairly recent and exceptionally bad - so I was wrong about it having been this bad for a long time. Apparently, the backlog of asylum cases got much worse during Priti Patel's time as Home Secretary for various reasons including her own incompetency -  Covid, Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong also had some impact. Apparently another reason is that despite recruiting more asylum case workers, there was a retention problem for experienced case workers due to low motivation so this slowed down the system due to the huge proportion of inexperienced staff and lack of training to make quick decisions.