• jettrscga@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      How would this make them think twice? There weren’t any consequences for them for unlawful arrest and they still got to inconvenience protesters.

      • ᴇᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ 帝@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        It was going to be the high level conviction that would make the news and be a shot across the bows of anyone else who protested and it failed, miserably. The CPS and everyone else involved are going to have to consider each new case now because the chances of conviction don’t look good.

        they still got to inconvenience protesters

        Most protestors these days are prepared for inconvenience (some go out of their way to courter arrest in order to make a bigger splash), it’s a whole different ballgame if you could be looking at a criminal conviction for not doing much at all.

      • jtb@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Because the government has to pay her legal fees perhaps.

      • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s the CPS that may think twice about the prospect of prosecution, and the police are going to be pretty loathe to arrest if prosecutions are unsuccessful,

      • ᴇᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ 帝@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        Rwanda is a flagship policy that says more about their intent rather than their ability to make it work. They’ll keep flogging that dead horse until they are winkled out of office.

        This seems a poor policy that even those tasked with enforcing it didn’t want and they can quietly forget about it.

        • TWeaK@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          What it says most is that Suella Braverman wants to continue her father’s business of running concentration camps in Africa.

          Her dad, who for some reason has a Hispanic name, is of Goan Indian descent but born and raised in Kenya. In 1960, during the Mau Mau uprising under which Kenya gained independence from the UK, he somehow was granted a UK passport - while the rest of his family fled back to India. Upon arriving to the UK, he landed a job as head of a housing association. Now, his daughter is an MP.

          I’ve struggled to find hard evidence to confirm anything beyond the last paragraph, but it seems like there is a massive evidence-shaped hole that points to Braverman’s father running a British concentration camp in Kenya, one of many with horrible conditions that prompted Kenya’s revolution for independence.


          Lately, the Tory government have neglected in processing migrants from the UK, instead opting to house them in hotels (often owned by party donors, and at UK taxpayer’s expense). Many of these people could have long been deported from our shores, but doing that would reduce the potential stockpile of people they could put into the proposed Rwanda concentration camps.

          These are for profit businesses, run in a foreign country, which the UK taxpayer is paying to set up and accommodate. Furthermore, section 16.1 of the Rwanda deal says “the UK will accept ‘vulnerable migrants’ from Rwanda in return for those sent to Rwanda”. When pressed on the House of Lords, the government has refused to comment on how many migrants the government will be taking in return. Is it 1 for 1? More? Less? That is not defined.

          They’re still fucking stealing from us. We’re paying their court bills and their salaries while they set up their tax haven businesses that the UK society will see a significant net cost from, with very little benefit.