Seems reasonable to assume that if @uklabour’s stated reasons for supporting the CHIS (“Spycops”) Bill are as evasive as this piece by @ConorMcGinn (shadow security minister), either they’ve got no proper reasons or don’t want to admit what they are > labourlist.org/2020/10/voting…
Ok, so starting with this, the behaviour of the security services is already subject to the Human Rights Act, as are all actions by public authorities. The CHIS Bill won’t affect that at all. >
Does this mean undercover sources will cease to be in the shadows? If so, they’re not really undercover, are they? Is that really what the CHIS Bill is trying to achieve? What does Conor McGinn even think he means by this?
How does this fit with claims (not made here) that if agents aren’t able to commit offences they might be “tested” by terrorists or criminals trying to force them to do so? Won’t they just try to make agents do things against the HRA, eg torture, to get them to reveal themselves?
This obvs concedes that the CHIS Bill, unamended, can be used against legitimate trade union activity or to undermine campaigns against injustice, in which case why is it ok to support it even if unamended? If that’s the price you think worth paying, say so and explain why.
How will the CHIS Bill “strengthen” human rights? All @ConorMcGinn’s article does is claim (dubiously) that it won’t undermine them. But how does it actively strengthen them, and if it won’t, why say so?
And if intention is to protect national security, why no mention of the v wide range of agencies & activities covered, some far removed from nat security, eg Food Standards Agency or Border Force? These points are at the heart of opposition to the CHIS Bill, why not address them?
This gets to the heart of it: “responsible govt-in-waiting” is conceived as one which cringes towards Conservative priorities & stands for increasing the powers of agencies which have repeatedly shown themselves irresponsible in use of power. Embarrassing.
Remarkable how this crisis has brought out people whose confidence in commenting isn’t obviously matched by any expertise
This guy for e.g has got 100s of likes & RTs for a vast thread mixing sympathetic on-the-ground reporting with obnoxious generalisations & flat-out untruths
It is just not true that most people can claim asylum in the UK from abroad (Afghan British Army interpreters had a v specific programme which didn’t even help all of them). That fact (& the difficulty in solving it) is part of the problem
So here’s what happened to my client (let’s call her S) when the Home Office accused her of lying and put her through four years of hell.
S came to the UK to be with her husband. She isn’t a native English speaker & had to do an English language test, which she passed. 1/
A huge row arose in 2014 when the BBC broadcast allegations of fraud in English language testing centres. It seems likely that fraud was happening, but it’s the Home Office’s panicky response which has been criticised & which forms the background to S’s troubles. 2/
In 2012 S took an English test as part of an application to extend her stay. The people at the test centre tried to persuade her they’d do the test for her & she cd pass it off as her own. She refused & did the test properly. In 2015 after the scandal blew up… 3/
So, Home Office fees. Labour have announced👇that they’ll reduce the fees for applying to the Home Office to the actual cost of processing the application. Just a quick thread to explain why that’s important, even life-changing, for many people, including kids born in the UK. 1/
2/ In the case @DLPubliclaw tweeted about earlier, we represent a family of 5 (parents + 3 children btw 5 & 9 born in UK). They face a bill of £7665 to stay in the UK (£1033 fee + £500 NHS surcharge per person).
1/13 So, a quick(ish) thread on what Labour have announced on asylum and immigration. Short version: there’s some really good and important stuff in the manifesto. But a bit woolly on detail and some unfortunate omissions.
2/13 Labour will scrap the 2014 Act - that’s the one bringing in the worst parts of the Hostile Environment, including checks by landlords or banks. This is course good and important. They make sure to remind us that the LibDems were responsible for it as well as the Tories
3/13 There’s talk abt strengthening borders & criticisms of Tory staffing cuts - will be controversial to many - but IMHO it’s vital to realise how far the Hostile Environment was a way of outsourcing immigration control, to substitute for a properly resourced system