John McDonnell asks Suella Braverman to tone down her “inflammatory language” as it is putting asylum seekers, & the people who represent them, at risk.
Irresponsible extremist Braverman completely ignores his important request concerning her dangerous & divisive rhetoric.
Patrick Grady asks Braverman if she's ever met anyone who came to the UK on a small boat to ask about their hopes for the future, or look them in the eye & say they are not welcome.
Braverman completely ignores his question & says the bill provides a pragmatic solution.
Tommy Sheppard asks Braverman to confirm that it is the Govt’s intention to provoke exclusion from the Council of Europe (which oversees the ECHR) & says the bill is “vile & shameful”.
Braverman ignores the ECHR question & makes the absurd claim that the bill is 'compassionate'.
Khalid Mahmood says this plan is unworkable & is purely political, aimed at winning red wall seats, “at the expense of xenophobia & racism”.
Brass-necked Braverman says it is irresponsible to say anyone who wants to control migration numbers is racist. Mahmood didn't say this.
Joanna Cherry says the courts are going to find these measures contrary to international law & the European convention on human rights, & asks if the government intends to fight the next GE promising to withdraw from the ECHR.
Braverman ignores her question & mentions Rwanda.
Diane Abbott says she deplores Braverman’s attempt to try & smear immigrants as murderers & rapists & says her plans are “deplorable & unworkable”.
Braverman says it's wrong to conflate people coming here legitimately with those coming to the UK illegally. Abbott didn't do this.
Stuart C McDonald says there is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker, & asks if Sunak will tell Macron that the UK would be willing to leave the ECHR.
Braverman ignores his question & criticises the Scottish Govt for not housing more asylum seekers.
Yvette Cooper says the Govt has promised to address this problem before, & the Bill risks making things worse.
Braverman accuses Cooper of “hysteria, histrionics & criticism” & lies by saying Labour don't want to stop small boats as they think it is “bigoted” to think like that.
Paula Barker says if Rwanda can only take 200 people, what will happen to the 44,000 other asylum seekers.
Dangerously irresponsible & delusional extremist Braverman says she is proud of the Rwanda deal & thanks fellow extremist Priti Patel for the work on the scheme.
Luke Pollard asks if LGBT asylum seekers may be sent back to countries where they may be persecuted, or if they will be sent to #Rwanda, where LGBT people face discrimination.
Braverman says if people are claiming asylum from a safe country, they should not be coming to the UK.
Pig-ignorant ideologically extreme nationalist Scott Benton says it is “completely unacceptable” that a foreign court can constrain what the government does & talks about 'interference' from 'foreign judges'.
Pig-ignorant ideologically extreme nationalist Jonathan Gullis says his constituents would welcome the Bill even more if the Govt said it'd derogate from the ECHR, & asks when hotels in his constituency will be cleared of asylum seekers.
Braverman ignores the hotels question.
Pig-ignorant ideologically extreme nationalist David Jones tells a grotesque outright lie when he says the bill is advocating the “correct & humane” approach. There is nothing humane about it. Braverman says he is “absolutely right”.
Pig-ignorant ideologically extreme nationalist Simon Clarke asks Braverman to commit to leaving the ECHR if the bill is frustrated.
Braverman says the Govt THINKS this bill is in line with international obligations.
Pig-ignorant ideologically extreme nationalist #30pLee claims that Starmer said, when asked if foreign murders & rapists should be deported, that it depended on the circumstances (which it obviously does).
Braverman says Lee's right to point out Labour's "shameless position".
Pig-ignorant ideologically extreme nationalist Nicolas Fletcher tells a grotesque outright lie, reminiscent of every fascist in British history, claiming that 'the UK is full'.
Braverman says he is right to say illegal migration is putting unsustainable pressures on the UK.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Tommy Robinson claimed his protest drew “three million patriots”. The Met Police reported 110,000.
Prof Milad Haghani, an actual world-leading expert on estimating crowd sizes, estimates “about 56,000... However I run the numbers, it’s very difficult to make it to 100,000.”
Unlike shameless liar and multiply-convicted violent far-right coke-snorting thug Tommeh, Prof Haghani is a world-leading expert on estimating crowd sizes. He leads geospatial transport planning initiatives, and is an expert in crowd dynamics.
Tommeh is a world-leading grifter.
Compulsive shameless liar Tommy Robinson made the laughable claim that his 'Unite (Divide) The Kingdom' rally was “officially the biggest protest in British history.” 🤥
In reality, as only about 56,000 people attended, it struggled to scrape the top TWENTY. 😂
To spell out why, we need to unpack both the underlying implication of Andrew Doyle's argument and the reasons why it fails to adequately account for contemporary political dangers.
Andrew Doyle asserts that the term "fascism" is misused to the point of recklessness, echoing George Orwell’s 1944 observation that the word had been rendered meaningless. Doyle’s concern is not uncommon—but imho, it’s ultimately misplaced, especially in today’s context.
While it’s true that “fascism” is sometimes deployed rhetorically or hyperbolically (eg by Trump), Doyle’s framing dangerously downplays the genuine resurgence of fascist-adjacent movements across the Western world and undermines the analytical clarity necessary to confront them.
Boris Johnson appears to have had a secret meeting with billionaire Peter Thiel - perhaps the most fanatical of the libertarian Oligarchs and co-founder of the controversial US data firm Palantir, the year before it was given a role at the heart of the UK’s pandemic response.
The hour-long afternoon meeting on 28 August 2019 was marked “private” in a log of Johnson’s activities that day and was not subsequently disclosed on the government’s public log of meetings.
Elon Musk has been amplifying far-right accounts again, including Tommy Robinson, Rupert Lowe, and numerous anonynmous known #disinformation superspreader accounts like 'End Wokeness'.
Let's examine the context for yesterday's march in Richard Tice's constituency, #Skegness.
After decades of neglect, Skegness (pop 20K), stands out on key socio-economic markers on national averages: residents are older; whiter; lower full-time employment; higher rates of few/no qualifications; and concentrated deprivation - it's far-more deprived than most of England.
History repeatedly teaches us that burdening already struggling communities is a recipe for disaster.
These communities have been crying out for help for DECADES, but successive UK Govts have largely ignored their pleas, and continued to increase inequality, which harms us all.
🧵 @Rylan Asylum seekers coming here aren’t technically "illegal." International law (the 1951 Refugee Convention) allows people to seek asylum in any country regardless of how they arrive or how many countries they pass through, as long as they're fleeing persecution or danger.
Allow me to explain why asylum seekers aren’t “illegal”, and how misinformation and nasty demonising and scapegoating rhetoric by certain politicians and media, including news media, has made some British people less welcoming of asylum seeekers.
@Rylan
People fleeing war, torture, or persecution have the legal right to seek asylum.
The 1951 Refugee Convention, which the UK helped write, says anyone escaping danger can apply for asylum in another country no matter how they arrive: claiming asylum isn't a crime.
Farage's illiberal, immoral, & unworkable authoritarian plan involves ripping up human rights laws forged after WWII, which protect British people, & wasting £billions of UK taxpayers' money, giving some of it to corrupt misogynistic totalitarian regimes. theguardian.com/politics/2025/…
Leaving the #ECHR, repealing the Human Rights Act and disapplying international conventions
The UK would be an outlier among European democracies, in the company of only Russia and Belarus, if it were to leave the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
Opting out of treaties such as the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, the UN Convention against torture and the Council of Europe Anti-Trafficking Convention would also be likely to do serious harm to the UK’s international reputation.
It could also undermine current return deals, including with France, and other cooperation agreements on people-smuggling with European nations such as Germany.
The Society of Labour Lawyers said the plan would “in all likelihood preclude further cooperation and law enforcement in dealing with small boats coming from the continent and so increase, rather than reduce, the numbers reaching our shores”.
Farage said he would legislate to remove the “Hardial Singh” safeguards – a reference to a legal precedent that sets limits on the Home Office’s immigration detention powers – to allow indefinite detention for immigration purposes. This would be highly vulnerable to legal challenge.
Many of the rights protected by the ECHR and the Human Rights Act are rooted in British case law, so judges would still be able to prevent deportations, even without international conventions.
Reform UK’s grotesque far-right mass deportation plan is not just economically and socially illiterate (Britain an ageing population and low birth rate) rely on striking “returns agreements” with countries including Afghanistan, Iran, Eritrea and Sudan, offering financial incentives to secure these deals, alongside visa restrictions and potential sanctions on countries that refuse.
These are countries where the Home Office’s risk reports warn of widespread torture and persecution.
It would risk the scenario of making payments to countries such as Iran, whose regime the UK government has accused of plotting terror attacks on British soil.
The Liberal Democrats called the payments “a Taliban tax”, saying the plan would entail sending billions “to an oppressive regime that British soldiers fought and died to defeat”. They said: “Not a penny of taxpayers’ money should go to a group so closely linked to terrorist organisations proscribed by the UK.”