gotta link? I like a laugh

morning

Thanks, I litigated each of these issues at the time. By “work”, I meant “deter refugees from coming” - what do you mean?

Fondly remembering Mike O’Brien MP, and reading his exchange with senior officials about implementing his policy of taping asylum interviews. They *hated* it and tried every trick to stall or block it. He saw through it and kept on going.

We do not seem to have a Mike O’Brien today.

Take the jewellery confiscation idea. Will a person who would have to pay a smuggler £1000s (of their own or family money), or pay them with their body, and maybe risk drowning, change their mind about the journey / destination to keep their jewellery? You be the judge.

PS. There is no data to support contention that any significant proportion of genuine refugees will change their intention to come to UK based on these kind of announcements, or the implementation of the policies.

Labour, 2005, Govt quietly introduced formal scheme for failed asylum-seekers who couldn’t leave UK or whose human rights would be breached if they were forced, extending support to those with plausible fresh asylum claims.

Labour, 2005, Govt loudly passed law listing all the things to take into account when deciding if a person is lying about their asylum claim. This applies to judges, you know, those people whose whole job it is to decide what the facts are. Didn’t make any real difference.

(Side note, senior Home Office official gave witness evidence that immigration officials ask *everyone* arriving in UK for their name - even if they present a UK passport - which surprised at least one judge who said he had never been asked) +

Labour, 2002, Home Office loudly announced that asylum-seekers who didn’t claim asylum on arrival would be denied asylum support. Rarely applied in practice because law’s own human rights exception exempted destitute people, after Govt had to be dragged through courts to properly accept that +

2000, Home Office had to quickly, quietly establish a “hard cases” scheme for the failed asylum-seekers they couldn’t remove or who had plausible fresh asylum claims based on new evidence / events +

(Home Office got a temporary budget boost to speed up decision-making, on basis this would cut expenditure on asylum-support) +

As part of new scheme, asylum-seekers would have to hand over their jewellery to Home Office to pay for accommodation. (This didn’t become a practice, probably because staff found it humiliating and Govt depts aren’t set up to re-sell jewellery. )

Labour, 1999, loudly established Home Office asylum support scheme for asylum-seekers only, at much lower rates than income support & with “no choice” accomm, replacing pre-1996 option to take rented accomm directly and claim housing benefit / LA support, none for failed asylum-seekers +