Some mop-up thoughts from yesterday's violence in London and answers to a few Qs in my timeline. I have ignored the ones from those who can't edit out the f word or other abuse from their comments. Thread:
1) Some people say there were Nazi salutes & we have not reported these. I didn't see Nazi salutes. I saw football lads raising their arms while chanting, in a way that it commonly scene at footy matches. If that is what people are referring to, they're not Nazi salutes.
2) Some people say we're tarnishing the name of football supporters. Well, speaking as a born and bred supporter of the once and soon to be mighty again Nottingham Forest, I don't think so. But a football-firm linked outfit, the DFLA were key organisers yesterday.
The DFLA - Democratic Football Lads Alliance - organised on Facebook and you don't need MI5's powers to find open source proof of their plans. No one turned up in club colours - that's part of the deal - but some were there with DFLA badges and t-shirts.
I can definitely recall seeing guys with club tattoos.
I don't think it's accurate to call all these guys "far right" in the sense that far right = anti-black. There were a tiny number of black men among them. So some footy firms turned out, to be frank, for a bit of a rumble with the police and to defend their "identity".
Far right is a complex term these days. I don't like using it because it means different things to different people. Example: Tommy Robinson has a thing against Islam/Muslims but has friends and helpers who are from ethnic minorities. Complicated. Better to say what we see.
But the trad white-nationalist far right were definitely there too - and there is some overlap between them and the football firms, depending on where they come from in England. Think of yesterday as a Venn Diagram of street aggro. Different, overlapping motivations.
Very few protesters were actually "defending" any national memorials.
Some people claim we've not reported attempts by BLM types to stir trouble. The BLM lot were kept well separate. There were definitely moments when some people who may or may not have been BLM came close to Parly Sq and were kept back by police.
I couldn't clearly see who these people were - we were inside the police containment kettle. Sorry about that. Only human.
Some people say we failed to report a series incident of anti-white violence at Trafalgar Sq. Well I and other BBC people looked into it and there's no incident, witnesses or crime scene that matches claims of a life-threatening throat-slashing.
Finally, some abuse directed at me & colleagues for "ignoring" purported previous BLM violence. I wasn't at Bristol but we reported - clearly - the criminal damage of the statue being toppled. Our pictures from other demos are out there.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
RWANDA LATEST: Judges have just granted permission for the controversial asylum removals scheme to go be challenged at the Court of Appeal. This decision means NO FLIGHTS will be leaving the UK soon.
Judges at the High Court have ruled that the migrants who challenged their prospective transfer to Rwanda can appeal against the entire scheme on some of the core grounds - including whether Rwanda's word can be trusted.
The decision (which is rather complicated) means, most importantly, the injunction against a removal flight remains in force. That ruling from the European Ct says there can be no flights until three weeks after end of challenges in UK courts.
RWANDA legal challenge latest. Later than I had hoped due to other commitments. Today was an important day because we got to hear the government’s full legal arguments for the first time. Some takeaways:
First off, Lord David Pannick QC is leading for the government (yes the very same). One of his lines of defence is quite simple amid the 100,000,000s of documents in this case.
Basically… back in 2004 Tony Blair’s government passed an immigration act that gives ministers the power to send an asylum seeker to another safe country. Here’s the relevant part of that power legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/19/…
Rwanda latest: Significant intervention in the High Court today from the UN’s Refugee Agency, UNHCR. It’s said that a) Rwanda isn’t safe for the plan b) the Home Office hasn’t properly looked into the situation c) people sent there could be sent back to nations that torture
The UN argues that the Home Office plan breaks both UK law and the international law that makes up the Refugee Convention - and it says that is “regrets” that it is having to warn one of the founders of that global treaty that its actions are wrong. Detailed thread follows:
Nobody from the government in court appears to be disputing that the UN is the only expert *on conditions in Rwanda* involved in this case. So the UNHCR’s lawyers told the High Court today that its views, warnings and conclusions should be given particular weight.
Rwanda flights legal challenge: We’re back in court for the afternoon’s evidence and submissions. Raza Husain QC is continuing to make the challengers’ main arguments against the controversial policy.
Here’s a summary of the challenge the government is facing.
In short, Home Secretary Priti Patel (or her successor if she leaves post under the new PM) is being challenged on a range of different legal points which make the Rwanda case unusually complicated.
And its worth noting from the outset that these challenges are NOT just on human rights grounds. They also concern questions about the powers given to ministers by Parliament.
Hello from the High Court for the start of the Migrants to Rwanda legal challenge. This hearing - which goes on all week - is the beginning of the court’s review of whether the government’s plan to send cross-Channel migrants to the African nation is legal.
Raza Hussain QC is starting for the claimants - a combination of individual migrants and a number of NGOs challenging the Home Office’s plan. He tells the judges: “Forgive me for not introducing everybody.” There are at least 40 barristers in court which is possibly a record…
Good morning from the High Court: Starting now - the major legal challenge to the Home Office’s proposed despatching of asylum seekers to Rwanda, first flight purportedly due to leave next Tuesday.
So far: Around 100 people have been told they might be put on a flight. Three of those, taking part in today’s action, have now been told by the Home Office, they won’t be sent to Rwanda at this time.
The Home Office has told the court that the claim brought against the Rwanda policy, by charities and other campaigners and lawyers for individual asylum seekers, should fail because it’s not justified - and the plan is in the public interest to deter English Channel crossings.