London Police Deploy Facial Recognition at Protest for First Time

You cannot get asylum on economic grounds.

> Australia did this

And it didn't work. They spent $12 billion(aussie dollars) on ~4000 people. which is a pointless waste of cash, even more so when they had to evacuate those granted asylum back to aus because they were so badly looked after.

> We have to find temporary accommodation anyway. Rwanda changed absolutely nothing about that policy,

Correct, but temporary accommodation is >>£ than normal accommodation. If you can't progress a claim because the destination is blocked, then you need more temporary accommodation. The crucial thing is, when your claim is processing, you can't work, which means we have to pay for everything.

Once the claim is processed and they have asylum, they can work, which means we don't need to pay anywhere near as much to look after them.

> But this act is used to detain some illegal migrants in prison in some cases. Usually this is terrorism-related but, I believe, this has also been used in the many cases of sexual assault.

No this is just the law. anyone who commits those acts are meant to be in jail, because it's illegal. thats how the law works.

> detain anyone who comes to the UK by irregular means.

What the bill actually does is make it almost impossible to claim asylum in a catch 22 style. Basically if you come here any any means, with the intention of claiming asylum, it invalidates any visa you may have. This means your entry in the UK was illegal. So there are no legal routes to claim asylum out side of the two special schemes for ukrainains and Hong Kongers.

the problem is, because they didn't do the ground work that would remove the contradicting laws. Which means its not really possible to defend it in court.

> Rwanda changed absolutely nothing about that policy, I am not sure how anyone could think otherwise

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/illegal-migration-dealing...

Basically because it was illegal to send people to anywhere other than rwanda, and rwanda was ready, and wasn't legal to send anyone to for processing, it meant that no-one could be processed. This was a known and telegraphed problem of the bill. This act: https://www.legal500.com/developments/thought-leadership/ill... made it legal to process claims again.

> the Tories put substantial resources into the Home Office

Yes, and it was spent on accommodation and rwanda.

> We are speeding down the path to balkanization,

No, we really are not. Go to Rotterdam and look at how integration happens there (hint, it fucking doesnt) In Britain we do integration really well. kids of immigrants have excellent outcomes in education and employment. For example out of the last 8 years there has only been 4 months where someone who isnt a child of a migrant held the top spot (6 out of 8)

> Labour went for student visas immediately,

Actually the tories did that first. The best part? now we have to pay more to bail out universities.

> There is a long historical record here of this happening in other countries that people are determined to ignore.

What record is that?

I don't think it is, for many reasons. One is most "violent convictions" are in fact bullshit; at least here in France it's very common to get condemned for violence against officers of the law (« violences sur PDAP ») despite ample video evidence of the contrary (i.e. being assaulted by the cops).

Another one is unlike protective measures against harassment and in-person violence, which are meant to keep a person's physical/mental peace, who do we protect by pre-preventing someone from protesting? If a person effectively assaults someone, then let them get condemned for that crime. How is it acceptable for an administration to decide that someone is going to commit a crime in the future?

Likewise, facial recognition is wrong for many reasons. Not only because it's many times wrong in its assessments, making innocent people face severe consequences. But also because in the cases when it's right, it's gonna be used against do-gooders, just like every power given to the State.

Two examples from here in France: the laws about dissolving non-profits were invented in the 30s against fascist militias, however in the next years (even before the war) they were used against anti-colonial/anti-racist leagues. They've been used again lately against ecological and antifascist groups. Likewise, the laws about "associations de malfaiteurs" designed to help combat the mafia have in fact been used and abused to imprison activist groups.

You mean, of course, sprayed paint into the turbines of military planes, causing a £million plus in damages. It's certainly not behaviour that a government can allow to continue.

Maybe people don't understand the job a lawyer has? I'm assuming people here aren't as ignorant as to assume a) a lawyer supports the activity of the accused they defended, b) a PM can support actions seeking to damage infrastructure of the country they represent whether they personally might have in the past or not.

Palestine Action have acted like a terror group. Weakly, compared to those we've seen act in the UK, I'd accept. Israeli action against Palestinians has been reprehensible. Calling for genocide of Israelis is still not okay.

People decided to make it about supporting a censured group, and attacking Israelis (and Jews in particular) rather than protesting for an end to violence. It seems none of those people called for Hamas to return the people they kidnapped - any pretence of wanting peace fails right there.

Hamas got what they wanted, I guess. Such evil.