Chris Longhorn

[Chris Longhorn @LonghoC]

@NewtonEmerson Unfortunately the evidence doesn’t seem to reach the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold (best I’ve heard is “linked to Russia”).

While there isn’t a shred of doubt in my mind who is responsible, there’s plausible deniability — Russia is many things, stupid isn’t one of them.

[Chris Longhorn @LonghoC]

@xMaccabix

[Chris Longhorn @LonghoC]

@AndyBelfast @PaulMur60727684 FG would do such a thing? Shocked, just shocked I tell you.

(and yes, while FG are not the brightest, they certainly know what is in the Agreement and what it does stipulate and what it doesn’t; if they didn’t like it, they shouldn’t have supported it)

[Chris Longhorn @LonghoC]

@JulieACorr @richardtgarland Given how long the Petition of Concern survives as part of the NI constitution, I am struggling with the argument it is anti-democratic.

Not that I think it is emblematic of a wonderful, well-functioning legislature, mind you. But ultimately that’s what the voters voted for.

[Chris Longhorn @LonghoC]

@miririnmiri Adults too should be banned from social media.

With the sole exception made for cat pics, obs.

[Chris Longhorn @LonghoC]

@hubertlepicki They really are the pits.

The ban doesn’t include Bluesky Social incidentally so it’s not just trying to create a moral panic, it’s incompetence too.

[Chris Longhorn @LonghoC]

@NewtonEmerson A feature, not a bug.

[Chris Longhorn @LonghoC]

@ArdsBrexit @X It’s all very clever but, unfortunately for those behind this sort of attempt at narrative creation, it won’t work any more.

[Chris Longhorn @LonghoC]

@SeeRedWoman1 @BorderSolution_ @SDLPlive Claire Hanna was just as bad in a different way on The View on Thursday.

Bottom line is, for the SDLP, you talk about immigration or asylum policy and you’re a trouble maker who is beyond the pale.

[Chris Longhorn @LonghoC]

@CageFooName When you get to my age Bill, what you need more is an up-to-date photo looking reasonably smart and presentable for any “Chris left the house on Thursday in a confused state and his family are concerned for his welfare” appeal so the public to report if they’ve seen you.

[Chris Longhorn @LonghoC]

@polidemitolog I’m convinced Russian coordinators of disinformation have A-list’ers (who get “new” stuff, at least not too abysmally written), B-list’ers (new, low effort material) … thru’ to Z-listers (made to recite “Boris Johnson made Ukraine reject the Russian peace deal” era favourites).

[Chris Longhorn @LonghoC]

@polidemitolog Based.

[Chris Longhorn @LonghoC]

@polobear_88 When I was a kid, I just had a poster of Kenny Dalglish, was happy to leave it at that.

(that said, I'd also pester my dad into driving the entire length of the M62 on spec hoping we'd manage to buy tickets on the day at the gate, so I'm about a million years behind the times)

[Chris Longhorn @LonghoC]

@VintageMrHobbes The only explanation is Pagel must have some vast secret stash of kompromat on some very influential people.

[Chris Longhorn @LonghoC]

Sam framed the current asylum system’s outcome — an inevitable fast-track approval — as being a result of Jenrick and Braverman’s immigration legislation.

But in fact the previous government’s legislative programme for immigration and asylum had two possible outcomes: fast-track asylum approval or fast-track deportation to a safe 3rd country.

As a result of the current government’s legislative changes, the effect of asylum system’s operational processes is inevitable — a “light touch” asylum approval decision.

The system’s workings, which Sam referenced, is not as Jenrick and Braverman intended. We do not know if it is what the current government wanted or whether it was the unintended consequences of a partial, piecemeal, repeal of a body of legislation which was designed to function as a combined whole.

Why Sam decided to omit the context of Jenrick and Braverman drafting legislation packages which were designed to be complimentary and that it was the current government (not Jenrick and Braverman) which broke the former daisy-chain of interlocking Acts, the result of which is an asylum system that does not function in the way Jenrick and Braverman originally designed it to do, I can’t say. Sam can respond to my post if he wishes, or not, this being — after all — social media where no-one owes anyone anything by way of engagement.

[Chris Longhorn @LonghoC]

@NotNoodles666 @SJAMcBride Because when Starmer partially repealed the previous government’s asylum legislative framework the result was a fast-track asylum approvals system without the associated fast-track deportation provisions intended to accompany it.

[Chris Longhorn @LonghoC]

@AnGarraiDubh @SJAMcBride We can’t really know what Starmer intended (perhaps he simply didn’t understand the implications of unpicking an entire legislative programme piecemeal, perhaps he knew and didn’t care).

Regardless, we’re stuck with rocket-docket asylum approvals without any counterbalancing.

[Chris Longhorn @LonghoC]

@AnGarraiDubh @SJAMcBride The legality aspect is arguable (the government at the time certainly thought it was permissible) and — even if that was the view of the new Labour government — why not just repeal both the Rwanda bill and the fast-tracking one?

[Chris Longhorn @LonghoC]

@SJAMcBride https://t.co/LKXscZMoNH

[Chris Longhorn @LonghoC]

@SJAMcBride You omitted to add the legislation referred to in your post was intended to sit alongside the “Rwanda Bill” which enabled prompt deportation of asylum seekers.

As a result of that bill being repealed by Labour, we’re now stuck with fast track approval without fast track removal.