the problem isn’t Boris. It’s how hundreds of politicians, civil servants, police officers, the media, who claim to uphold the law and the truth watched *in silence* while hundreds of them broke the law
That system is just as open to abuse by Gove or Patel. +
Johnson has shown us that UK’s political system could not (so far) keep its standards and constrain a shameless liar willing to push colleagues into complicity.
How would it cope with a *competent* sociopathic autocrat PM? +
Politics is a magnet to narcissists & sociopaths. It needs extremely strong checks and balances, in a lasting structure to defeat and expose cheats & liars and constantly privilege transparent rule-following.
That should be our focus. Not swapping out one crook for another. +
It doesn’t matter whether the parties were dangerous or not. What matters is that *we didn’t know about them for a whole year*.
No civil servant raised a concern (it seems). No police reported them (that’s clear). No media reported them.
No one blew the whistle. //
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Djokovic’s case *should* provoke outrage: people can be imprisoned indefinitely, denied moving around *on a whim* & have no real remedy?
But we debate how this normality should be applied to a special person.
What abt everyone else? Especially ppl from non-white-coded states.
This was not the exercise of a pandemic-prevention power of isolation. It was border control. The silence on such extreme executive power over the bodies of humans is troubling.
But not surprising. Australian Govs of all parties have used it.
Djokovic’s case should also be a teachable moment on the emptiness of “fair procedure” and “judicial remedies” in immigration.
He had the right (upheld by a court) to more time to make representations - but under a system where a politician can do what he likes. +
+ anyone can write to the ICC prosecutor. It’s not a formal legal process. Which is generally good, but here signifies that it’s being chosen to avoid the scrutiny a case would get in British or European courts +
+ and if the “lawyer” representing isn’t qualified to act as a lawyer (not a solicitor or barrister, as seems to be case here) that also suggests your using “legal process” as a stunt, and not genuinely / seriously.
Home Office Anon tells Sun its the cheap, easy answer to stop Channel crossings.
Tl;dr that claim is bogus - but lays the ground for massive extension of the surveillance state.
THREAD 1/
125,000 asylum-seekers in UK. Application numbers historically low, but pending claims high because Home Office officials refuse to decide cases, procrastinating for years instead of issuing permits to refugees & others they can’t remove. commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-brief… 2/
Some asylum-seekers are detained. But vast majority are on “immigration bail”, a scare-criminal-sounding re-labelling of “temporary admission” by May’s Immigration Act 2016 3/
Manning:
"I am an admirer of Adolf Hitler. Not everything about him, of course. I deplore his gas chambers and Gestapo as much as anyone, but I admire him for the things he got right, which I reckon was about 50 per cent." irishtimes.com/news/racist-an…
I first met Laura when she came up to me at court and said “I’m going to be your pupil” (barrister). And I said “but we haven’t decided who your supervisor will b…” and she was like “ok, but it’s going to be you”. And it was…+
+ showing that same vision & tenacity… (she had been a trades union organiser of garment workers in USA) Laura was a superbly intelligent and hardworking pupil, so much so that +
+ towards the end of pupillage Laura was poached to work on tricky international issues at the Special Court for Sierra Leone +
Lesson for tweeters from important judgment in Riley v Murray: don’t share your damaging take on a tweet without including a screen shot. My THREAD on the judgment 1/
I am not a libel lawyer. This thread is not legal advice. I am just someone who says really critical things and does not like to be sued for libel. (And hasn’t been.) 2/
Murray tweeted her take on what Riley meant in her tweet, without QT or screenshot. 3/