There's a lot of confusion about the counter-extremism sprint and what's happening with it. My understanding is:

🔹ministers have not made a decision on what, if any, recommendations to adopt and will announce when they do
🔹a new definition of extremism wasn't in sprint's remit 🔹according to the Policy Exchange report on the leaked review, it said a new definition announced by then-communities secretary Michael Gove last year (below) "should not be formally dropped...but should not be a major part of the Government’s approach"

The man who set up a Telegram account used to organise and incite riots following the Southport attack has been jailed

Andrew McIntyre, 39, started "Southport Wake Up" and attended disorder in Southport on 30 July and in Liverpool on 3 August himself. He was jailed for 7.5 years Not only did McIntyre circulate lists of potential targets, including a list of immigration advice centres and refugee charities, he shared neo-Nazi content and explicit calls for murder, including "kill all Muslims", "every single brown cunt must die" and "burn all mosques"

In July, I FOI'd the Home Office for the full breakdown of spending on the Rwanda scheme

I was refused because the government planned to publish the data in future, and today is the day. These numbers are in millions

gov.uk/government/pub… Of the £715m spent, which does not include wider costs to the asylum system include decisions slowing and hotels rocketing:

💷£270m was to Rwanda's Economic Transformation and Integration Fund (unrelated to people being sent) and £20m was for operational spending by Rwanda

This is unbelievably lazy and dangerous, especially from a former solicitor running to lead the Conservative Party

Robert Jenrick gets the charges wrong then launches into "cover-up" dogwhistle while surely knowing how the law limits what information can be released before trial

https://twitter.com/RobertJenrick/status/1851294780304863449

"The Southport attack hit me personally," Jenrick claims. But somehow there's no mention of the actual victims or their families

Keir Starmer is unlikely to be able to directly respond to this in any depth for obvious legal and ethical reasons, which Jenrick probably knows

Breaking: A neo-Nazi has been convicted of attempting to murder an asylum seeker at a hotel in Worcester in April

Callum Parslow launched his terror attack while on bail for targeting a black woman with racist and sexual messages online. His victim survived Parslow's trial began at Leicester Crown Court on 7 October but the media has been unable to publish anything until now because of reporting restrictions

They were imposed until the outcome of a second trial he faced for other offences, but he just changed his plea to guilty

Because of the misinformation about the horrific attack in Southport, I am going to use this thread to give factual information on how mass stabbings are investigated and what the involvement of counter-terrorism police means

These are general processes not specific to this case In cases of all kinds, police are banned from identifying suspects who have been arrested until they are charged with an offence

If the suspect is under18, they have automatic anonymity. It lifts when they turn 18, unless further restrictions made, or when a judge orders it

The government has responded to this High Court order, stating that it "does not intend to carry out enforced removals to Rwanda before the General Election on 4 July 2024"

The FDA's legal challenge against the Safety of Rwanda Act is going ahead on 6 June

https://twitter.com/lizziedearden/status/1795527670807285782

The government missed its initial Friday deadline for responding to the order, claiming it was “unable” to state the earliest date for removals and was given an extension until Tuesday

Another order had to be made on that yesterday, pretty chaotic

Oh wow. In a rare move, the High Court has issued an order for the government to formally inform it of "the earliest date on which the Government intend to begin removals to Rwanda"

Because Rishi Sunak's media statement on Thursdsy directly contradicted its own legal arguments This is the legal challenge against the Safety of Rwanda guidance for civil servants, brought by the FDA union

The government was reprimanded by the High Court on 10 May for messing it about with dates, which affected how the case was scheduled

https://x.com/lizziedearden/status/1788946197090025939?t=vR4o93ChPAVqpAqQW2RM_g&s=19

New: The Home Office has already started freeing people it detained for Rwanda flights

It will not confirm how many asylum seekers have so far been granted immigration bail but applications were expected. It plans to keep detaining more people to fill allocated detention space It is responding to individual legal challenges against detention as they come, which can be based on someone's individual vulnerabilities or an argument they will not be deported in a "reasonable period"

The applications are handled by independent judges rather than Home Office

A late addition:

On appeals against being sent to Rwanda, the PM claimed: "The judiciary have made available 25 courtrooms and identified 150 judges who could provide over 5,000 sitting days"

A judicial spokesman said: "The deployment of judges is a matter for the judiciary..."

https://twitter.com/lizziedearden/status/1782342904301621628

"...in line with new provisions in the Illegal Migration Act, the judiciary have identified a number of First Tier Tribunal judges who may be asked to sit in the Upper Tribunal to deal with any increase in appeals"

But decisions will be made by the Senior President of Tribunals

Follow this thread for a fact-checked watch-along of prime minister Rishi Sunak's press conference on the Rwanda scheme Wow he's going fast, I'll do my best

1. "We're going to deliver this indispensable deterrent so that we finally break the business model of the criminal gangs"

The Rwanda scheme required a rare ministerial direction because there is no evidence it will deter Channel crossings

Exclusive: The Home Office has been quietly rolling out a multi-million IT system that was supposed to "automate" asylum, citizenship and visa cases

It's now causing chaos, with errors, bugs and delays leaving staff "sobbing" while applicants suffer
inews.co.uk/news/politics/… At least £71m has so far been spent on the Atlas digital caseworking system and spending is rising, with the Home Office admitting “significant resource is being put in place to resolve” issues

Some of the glitches have been classified as a P1 “critical” technical incidents

New: Official figures passed to the UK by the Rwandan government raise fresh issues about its capacity to process asylum seekers from the UK

It has decided just over 400 claims in 5 years, and refused three quarters of them
inews.co.uk/news/politics/… Between 2019 and the end of November a total of 421 asylum claims were decided, and only 113 (27%) were granted

The largest number of cases considered by Rwanda in a single year was 164, in 2023. During the same period, the UK made decisions on more than 112,000 asylum cases

🚨Breaking: The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has conducted a legal assessment of the UK government's new Rwanda treaty and bill - and concludes the scheme still violates international law🚨 The government has claimed it can "address the Supreme Court's concerns" - the ruling that the Rwanda scheme was unlawful- with treaty enhancing safeguards on treatment of asylum seekers plus training and capacity building in Rwanda

The UNHCR says it hasn't fixed systemic issues

Revealed: The UK has lost track of thousands of migrants by removing their asylum claims from the system

But the Home Office's reliance on posted letters is causing chaos, and it is already having to reverse decisions and put cases back into the backlog
inews.co.uk/news/politics/… The asylum withdrawal process was designed for people who no longer wanted to claim asylum, had left UK or were non-compliant

But the tactic has rocketed amid changes to make it faster and easier since Rishi Sunak’s backlog pledge, and is now being used against genuine refugees

In the new Rwanda treaty, much of the substantial change is contained in the "Assurances as to treatment"

Among the additions from previous MOU is: "Nothing in this Article requires Rwanda to take steps to prevent a Relocated Individual from leaving Rwanda should they wish." This has always been the case, and was established in an early press briefing we had on the original deal, but it wasn't spelled out previously

New treaty on the left, previous Memorandum of Understanding on the right

I was the first journalist to report about the Home Office's rocketing "withdrawal" of asylum claims to hit Rishi Sunak's backlog target

When officials were questioned on it at today's Home Affairs Committee, they admitted: "In most cases, we don't know where those people are." As I reported in August, this tactic rose dramatically after the PM made pledge to clear "legacy backlog" by the end of 2023

Labour raised concern that those asylum seekers could "drift off into Britain’s underground economy, never to be heard of again"
independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-n…

James Cleverly has got off on the right foot with Home Office civil servants

Yesterday afternoon, he gave a speech from the atrium of the department's Marsham Street headquarters that was broadcast to all staff, and went down very well

Here's what he said: Mr Cleverly said his former post as foreign secretary was was “fantastic” but “it's a privilege to serve” as home sec:“It is an incredibly important job & I'm flattered the PM has asked me to step into this role"

Said he wants to "be seen to be doing a good and professional job”

The Metropolitan Police used its powers to ban pro-Palestinian marchers, but not Cenotaph "defenders" and far right groups, from Whitehall today

When asked why, the senior officer in charge of the operation said he thought they would "not cause serious disorder by themselves" At a press conference, DAC Laurence Taylor did not use the term "far right" and called the Cenotaph event a "counter protest"

He said:"Counter-protest will be allowed in Whitehall, because the sole purpose and intention is to protect the sanctity of the Cenotaph and remembrance"

The third and final day of the Supreme Court hearing over the UK's Rwanda migration deal has begun - follow live updates here

Sir James Eadie, representing the Home Office, is responding to submissions from lawyers representing asylum seekers and the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) Sir James says assurances given by Rwanda on how asylum seekers sent from the UK will be treated are "adequate to protect against a real risk of refoulement" to countries where they are in danger

"The question becomes whether Rwanda will comply," he adds

The second day of the Supreme Court hearing over the Rwanda deal is now underway - follow this thread for updates

First up is Raza Husain KC, representing a group of asylum seekers selected for the scheme, arguing why it's unlawful and the government appeal should be dismissed Mr Husain says the High Court's December 2022 ruling that the Rwanda deal was lawful was wrong, and was correctly found to be wrong by the Court of Appeal in June

He says it did not consider "critical evidence as to the state - past and present - of the Rwandan asylum system"