Nationality and Borders Bill

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Millennie Al
Catbabel
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by Millennie Al » Fri Jul 09, 2021 12:34 am

noggins wrote:
Thu Jul 08, 2021 10:52 am
I wondered - is it possible to undermine a draconian law, by privately prosecuting a clearly ridiculous, unjust, but letter-of-the-law case ?
The Director of Public Prosecutions has the power to take over a private prosecution. They also have the power (and, indeed, it could be argued the duty) to drop a prosecution which is not in the public interest. So the strategy is unlikely to work.
Covid-19 - Don't catch it: don't spread it.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Light of Blast
Posts: 6400
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Iceland

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by Bird on a Fire » Fri Jul 09, 2021 12:37 am

Also you might win.

Like The Producers, but with activist lawyers instead.
He has the grace of a swan, the wisdom of an owl, and the eye of an eagle—ladies and gentlemen, this man is for the birds!

IvanV
Fuzzable
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by IvanV » Fri Jul 09, 2021 9:10 am

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Fri Jul 09, 2021 12:37 am
Also you might win.

Like The Producers, but with activist lawyers instead.
Or like a Labour Party leadership election.

In general, I dislike the power to take over a private prosecution and drop it. It seems to run counter to the rule of law. It seems mainly to be used when someone is trying to get justice which is being denied them by the shabby behaviour of the government, and the government wants to get its way. For example when "security issues" are the excuse for a cover-up. The power should be unnecessary. If a private prosecution really is an abuse of process, or malicious prosecution, there are (or should be) legal processes for striking it out.

IvanV
Fuzzable
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by IvanV » Fri Jul 09, 2021 9:22 am

And there is that rather terrible case of a judge applying the law as written, because he was certain it would show the law for an ass, thinking the government would use its power to prevent the consequences. But they didn't, and Derek Bentley was hanged for a murder committed after his arrest.

User avatar
jdc
Hilda Ogden
Posts: 1032
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:31 pm
Location: Your Mum
Contact:

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill - Bentley case

Post by jdc » Fri Jul 09, 2021 3:32 pm

IvanV wrote:
Fri Jul 09, 2021 9:22 am
And there is that rather terrible case of a judge applying the law as written, because he was certain it would show the law for an ass, thinking the government would use its power to prevent the consequences. But they didn't, and Derek Bentley was hanged for a murder committed after his arrest.
I'm not sure about that. I'm sceptical of the claims that Goddard later made to Yallop.
Lord Goddard forwarded the jury's recommendation of mercy, but added that he himself "could find no mitigating circumstances".
Goddard's claims were disputed by John Parris in his book Scapegoat (Duckworth), published in 1991. Parris, who died in September 1996, was Craig's barrister at the 1952 trial, and wrote that Goddard told Maxwell Fyfe to ignore the jury's recommendation for mercy, and that Bentley must be hanged.

philbo
Sindis Poop
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2020 11:06 am

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by philbo » Sun Jul 11, 2021 6:45 am

Fishnut wrote:
Thu Jul 08, 2021 1:12 pm
I forgot to add, because it's so crazy I can't quite believe it, that the bill is also proposing offshore detention for asylum seekers.
Maybe they could, say, create an enclave for migrants with a dual use as a buffer zone between Russia and the West.. it could be called Spoiler:

Lew Dolby
Fuzzable
Posts: 374
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:59 pm
Location: Shropshire - Welsh Borders

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by Lew Dolby » Sun Jul 11, 2021 10:14 am

or we could just hold them in the Channel Islands and/or the Isle of Man.

Them buggers expect the UK taxpayers to provide defence, etc but don't put a penny in the kitty.
If you bring you kids up to think for themselves, you can't complain when they do

User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2699
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by discovolante » Sun Jul 11, 2021 10:18 am

I mean deciding where to 'put' 'them' to punish other people or use as potential cannon fodder is hilarious and all but oh wait no it isn't.
socialism is when the government does stuff

User avatar
Fishnut
Dorkwood
Posts: 1379
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by Fishnut » Tue Jul 13, 2021 12:25 pm

gal-dem have a great guide to the bill. They've identified four aspects of the bill they consider particularly troubling:

Criminalising asylum seekers
Those who come to the UK using the "wrong" way would be criminalised and face up to 4 years in prison. This, despite the fact that under international law there's no such thing as an "illegal" asylum seeker and the UK has closed many "legal" resettlement routes to the UK.

Increasing risk of exploitation
Rather than stopping dangerous criminals and protecting asylum seekers from exploitation, the bill will only make things worse. As the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, a committee of which Patel was a member, concluded back in 2019,
“a policy that focuses exclusively on closing borders will drive migrants to take more dangerous routes, and push them into the hands of criminal groups."
Asylum Accommodation
The Bill makes camp-style housing standard practice, and also opens up the possibility of holding asylum seekers offshore.
If implemented, it would mean that asylum seekers are removed from the UK without having their cases fairly heard, housed away from public scrutiny and likely in conditions that are unfit for human habitation.
Changes to the Judicial System
The Bill makes it harder to successfully plead your case for asylum and harder to appeal decisions.
The inevitable outcome of this Bill is that the UK will take in far fewer people in need of protection and is making a predetermined judgement on who is and is not deserving of safety. Not only will people be at more risk of trafficking and exploitation, even if they reach the UK’s shores, they will be left in limbo, without support, and treated as criminals.
The bill is evil. Pure and simple. It's going to go through, we know it will, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try all we can to oppose it. If you have an MP who listens to their constituents, please write to them. Safe Passage have a template you can use. And if you have some money spare, please consider donating to a one of the many organisations that support asylum seekers.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
snoozeofreason
Fuzzable
Posts: 304
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:22 pm

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by snoozeofreason » Tue Jul 13, 2021 9:40 pm

Matthew Scott heaps praise on Colin Yeo (the author of the Free Movement document mentioned in the OP) but has found more to worry about in section 23 of the bill than Yeo did. Section 23(2) sets out that where evidence is produced late by a claimant
Unless there are good reasons why the evidence was provided late, the deciding authority must, in considering it, have regard to the principle that minimal weight should be given to the evidence.
As Scott points out tthere are all sorts of reasons why an claimant might produce evidence late. Some of these might count as "good" reasons, but other won't.
Matthew Scott wrote: Let us take for example an asylum seeker from Iran who claims that he will face persecution because he has converted from Islam to Christianity. Apostasy is punishable by death in Iran, so the stakes are quite high. They almost always are in asylum cases.

Now let us suppose that late in the day – or at any “on or after” the deadline that the Home Office chooses to impose – he produces powerful evidence that he will be persecuted, and possibly executed for apostasy, if he is returned to Iran.

If there are “good reasons why the evidence was provided late” the evidence will be assessed on its merits.

But people make mistakes and often there will just be bad reasons. Perhaps he didn’t realise what evidence he needed to produce, or was just slow in getting hold of it. Perhaps his legal advisers were incompetent. Perhaps they served the wrong email address. Perhaps he, or they, simply missed a time limit. Lawyers do things like this from time to time, I’m afraid. So do asylum seekers who do not have lawyers and probably don’t speak English very well. Some of them may even struggle with simple things like immigration law.
The word "simple" in the last paragraph is ironic. As Scott points out, immigration law runs to millions of words set out in different acts of parliament passed over a period of half a century.

Scott also contends that, although section 23 is worded as if it instructs deciding authorities to heed some existing principle, it actually creates that principle (I get the impression that Yeo disagrees with that). He also points out that the section only applies to late evidence submitted by the claimant. The Home Secretary can take all the time she likes.
In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them. The human body was knocked up pretty late on the Friday afternoon, with a deadline looming. How well do you expect it to work?

User avatar
jimbob
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2736
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by jimbob » Thu Jul 15, 2021 3:16 pm

IvanV wrote:
Wed Jul 07, 2021 2:24 pm
There is a sorry record of the government passing acts, stating they are for a particular Good Purpose, and saying they won't be used for anything else. But then the law is there, policemen and lawyers and judges read it, and then enforce what it appears to say. And what they said in the house is not evidence in this country, although it is in others, and only on rare occasion have judges found it appropriate to pay it attention.

Thus the Twitter Joke trial was based on a law that was supposed to be about the electronic communication of blackmail - thugs demanding with menaces - by using electronic/media methods. But it has been widely, indeed mainly, been used outside that context, to controll trolling and the like, and, notoriously, an obviously jokey "I'll blow them sky high", which is not very different from the "I'll put a bomb under your chair" various schoolteachers used to use to express their frustration with their charges at schools I attended.

The Twitter Joke Trial was overturned, I think, on second appeal. Indeed I think the prosecution didn't even turn up to the second appeal, as they could see by then which way it was going. But that didn't end it. The law itself continues mainly to be used for policing trolling, etc, which was, according to those who introduced it, never its purpose. And almost never for its intended purpose. And few people have had the persistence, backing and knowledge to resist its application.

So it is very important to say "this law will be used for this evil purpose". Because if it can be so used, it probably will be.
Exactly.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
Grumble
After Pie
Posts: 2279
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by Grumble » Sat Jul 17, 2021 8:13 am

Lew Dolby wrote:
Sun Jul 11, 2021 10:14 am
or we could just hold them in the Channel Islands and/or the Isle of Man.

Them buggers expect the UK taxpayers to provide defence, etc but don't put a penny in the kitty.
We did that in WW2. A lot of Jewish German refugees were put in camps on the IoM
You’ve got no chutzpah, your organisational skills are lacklustre and your timekeeping is abysmal.

User avatar
Fishnut
Dorkwood
Posts: 1379
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by Fishnut » Sun Jul 18, 2021 12:22 pm

FOI requests have revealed that the Home Secretary was less than entirely truthful when she said that child rapists were "abusing our modern slavery system",
...an FoI response to queries by ECPAT UK reveals that the Home Office’s modern slavery unit could not provide data for child rapists, national security threats or failed asylum seekers referred into the modern slavery system since 2017. The response clarifies that it would need to trawl case files to compile the data, suggesting a lack of existing data for the claims made by Patel and the Home Office.

Patricia Durr, ECPAT UK’s chief executive, said: “It is shocking to have to rely on an FoI request to get to the truth behind a policy that will impact over 10,000 potential victims identified last year alone – the majority British nationals.

“Many provisions are unnecessary, cruel and clearly baseless. There are serious questions to be asked about the evidence basis for measures in a bill that is biggest setback in recent history on survivors of trafficking.”
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
Fishnut
Dorkwood
Posts: 1379
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by Fishnut » Thu Jul 22, 2021 7:14 am

This is a nice Q&A about the "illegal" crossings of the channel that are occurring which the Nationality and Borders Bill is trying to curb. TL:DR:

How does the UK compare to other European countries?
We are a minor destination for boat-bourne asylum-seekers. In 2020 the UK had 8,500 people arrive by sea, complared with 10,000 for Greece, 34,000 for Italy and 40,000 for Spain.

What’s happening to the UK numbers?
They appear to be rising but the numbers that you see in the press are not official, they're being collated by the press, which calls into question their reliability.

Isn’t this an asylum issue?
While the Home Secretary keeps framing this as an "illegal immigration" issue, 98% of those who arrived in the first half of 2020 (I'm guessing that's the most recent figures available though they don't say) sought asylum.
It’s important to remember that compared to other European countries, the UK was only fifth in absolute terms in the number of asylum applications it received in 2020, and 17th if we adjust this number by population size.
Will the new immigration bill reduce channel crossings?
No. It just makes the journeys more dangerous. This Twitter thread is a good explainer.

While the new bill won't reduce channel crossings it will make it harder for those subsequently claiming asylum to be successful, and itwill treat those claiming asylum worse than those who arrive through "legal" means. The United Nations Refugee Agency has said that "International refugee law prohibits penalisation of irregular entry" and has "[called] upon upon the UK to reconsider this proposal and align its plans with a proper interpretation and application of this provision."
The human consequences of this proposal will be very serious. Living under the constant threat of expulsion and being prevented from integrating will only push refugees with this ‘temporary protection status’ into precarious and potentially exploitative limbo situations in the UK – the very situations the UK seeks to take global leadership in eradicating.4 Such limbo situations, when for an extended period, can cause serious consequences for mental health. A system that is designed to maintain a refugee in a precarious status intentionally frustrates, rather than facilitates, their integration and naturalisation.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2699
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Nationality and Borders Bill

Post by discovolante » Thu Jul 22, 2021 7:28 am

The BBC's reporting of this yesterday was f.cking atrocious (I'm sure other outlets did a bad job too mind). I was going to submit a complaint just for the feeling of having done something but I didn't get round to it, I will try and have a go in a couple of days though.

One thing to note is that Priti Patel witters on about the public being fed up of boat crossings or whatever, and I think Zoe Gardner of the JCWI linked to a survey or two fairly recently showing that the public is currently less bothered about immigration than it ever was in recent years. That might be the covid effect and I'd have to dig it up for everyone to take to pieces, but still.
socialism is when the government does stuff

Post Reply