Prevent ain't Preventing

So, the perpetrator of the latest violent act against the Jewish community (finally recognised as a terror attack), was yet another person referred to prevent. 

How many times do we have to hear the phrase "known to the authorities" or "Referred to Prevent".

Prevent, as an organisation is supposed to de-radicalise the people referred to it. Now, I'm not sure how many have been successfully de-radicalised, but it seems there are a great many failures of the prevent strategy.

I just have to ask, what happens to prevent's failures? Are they just left to enter society and be ticking time bombs? 

I would like someone to be asking teh question, because it seems quite clear there is a whole raft of radicalised people out in the community that pose a risk to that community. 

There must be a further step for anyone that is referred to prevent and who fails to be de-radicalised. What that step is for the authorities to decide, because it's only them who have the power to remove the liberty of people. Because is that the next step incarceration? It seems it should be, given the risk these people pose. 

Oh Mandy,

The Mandleson affair continues to fester, giving more drama than a week of Eastenders episodes. 

It's quite clear that he's lost the confidence of not only opposition MPs, but MPs on his own benches. 

It's become so bad that four MPs were ejected from the commons by the speaker for openly calling Starmer a liar.

The L-word is verboten in Parliament, you can call an MP "economical with the truth", "misleading", but never, ever call them a liar.

The Parliamentary Circus convenes for a debate on the Mandelson affair today.

Olly Robbins already dropped bombshells in a meeting with the Foreign Office Select committee this morning. Letting slip that Starmer was pushing for another one of his chums to get a cushy job in the Foreign Office. But just don't tell David Lammy the Froreign Secretary about it...

Hmm. Quite the duplicitous schemer, our Kier.

Anyway, I'm sure the MPs in teh commons today will have popcorn at the ready, to enjoy the show.

It's Nice to be Proven Right (2).

Yesterday it was reported by the BBC that asylum seekers were falsely claiming to be gay in order to strengthen their claim, because they said they would be persecuted back home.

Yep, been saying that for years. Claimants are playing the system, just like they play the benefits system and get help from so-called interpreters (who are basically advocates). 

Now, today it's reported asylum seekers are falsely claiming domestic violence in order to strengthen their asylum claim as well. 

Not only the two cases above, but the BBC have reported there's a whole raft of abuses of the system, including falsely claiming you're an atheist or have converted to Christianity.

Yep, been saying that immigrants have been lying on applications for years. 

Look, I've seen it first hand. 

Waaaaay back in 1980 I was made redundant and had to claim dole money. One of the things I immediately noticed was the Asian lady next to me had an interpreter with her. From the jist of the conversation I was overhearing, the interpreter was doing all the heavy lifting regarding the lady's claim. My first ever glimpse into the industry that supports immigrants and runs rings round the systems we have in place. That was 46 years ago. 

Just imagine how sophisticated and entrenched the system of cheating and gaming the system is now, after 50 years of not being investigated and stopped.

In my booth, I was getting short shrift. No help, no top-ups, not entitled to anything extra. Such was the icy reception, I rather facetiously asked, "can I have an interpreter", because I pointed up that the interpreter next door knew the system better than I and I would like an advocate to tell me what I could and couldn't claim for, rather than the icy reception and the "It's not my job to tell you what you're entitled to" response to my questions from the lady opposite.

I got the job centre death stare for pointing this out.

So, it doesn't surprise me in the least, that immigrants are gaming the system and people are helping them to do it. It's been going on for decades. They are gaming the system because it can be gamed. The people running the system are gullible enough to allow advocates into the system, rather than keep it the same for everyone. 

If solicitors are advising client to lie on their asylum claims, they should be struck off. End of. 

If those advising the claimants are interpreters, the answer is simple: no more interpreters. 

It's not racism, it's not hate against the asylum seekers, it's closing loopholes they are using to game the system and making it a level and truthful playing field for all. Where there is genuine need, then we should help. But our hospitality has been abused for over half a century.

But it's nice that finally the BBC of all people is now asking to close off these false claim loopholes.