It is a catastrophic day for anyone who cares about Britain’s borders.
You know how the one-in, one-out deal with the French felt like a gimmick and a con? Well, it is.
The Home Secretary crunched the numbers this morning.
Shabana Mahmood said: “Numbers as of today are we’ve had 350 people come into the country from France, and 281 have been removed. They are still relatively small numbers.”
Some 350 in 281 out. We’ve had more than 10,000 illegal migrants crossed the Channel since they announced that policy.
So actually it’s about 10,350 in and 281 out. Then do you remember when Labour announced this?
The Home Secretary said France has now agreed that they will now start to intervene in French waters in order to prevent small boats. That hasn’t happened yet.
Patrick Christys has shared his opinion on Labour’s ‘one-in, one-out’ deal
|
GB NEWS
Last week, the French stopped the first boat. Looked pretty empty to me.
It’s taken them years to stop a single boat. And then today this was announced.
The French human rights watchdog has told the French Government they’re not allowed to tackle illegal migrants heading to Britain.
They are not allowed to cause these illegals any panic or distress.
BRITAIN’S MIGRANT CRISIS – READ MORE:
Shabana Mahmood is desperate for the arrangement to work
|
PAAnother bit of bad news today. Remember this?
Sir Keir Starmer previously said: “The Rwanda scheme was dead and buried before it started. It’s never been a deterrent. Everybody has worked out, particularly the gangs that run this, that the chance of ever going to Rwanda was so slim, less than one per cent. It was never a deterrent.”
Well, today, the Rwandan Government announced that they are going to be suing Britain for £50million.
They say we were legally obliged to make that payment and the treaty wasn’t cancelled correctly.
They argue that Starmer and Lord Hermer, who were supposed to be these great forensic legal minds, have got the law wrong.
And just to round it off, we’ve got a judge in this country who banned the British public from knowing until the end of the trial that a Pakistani rapist who raped a vulnerable teenage girl in a park was, in fact an asylum seeker.
She claimed it was to avoid “a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice”.
Was that really the right decision to prevent the jury and the public from knowing that a rapist was an asylum seeker until the end of the trial?
I don’t think so.
So thousands of illegals in, a few out.
Tthe French are ordered to stop tackling migrants on their way to Britain. The Rwandans are suing us.
And a judge wants to hide the fact that a rapist is an asylum seeker.
All that mental migrant news in just one day.
