Go home poster vans still up in Glasgow despite the best efforts of Liberal Democrats

We know that Liberal Democrats within the Government have said that there will be no repetition of the Go Home poster vans which were sent to drive round certain boroughs in London.

We also know that there will be no repetition of the Go home posters displayed in the Glasgow UKBA office, again thanks to Liberal Democrats within the coalition. Sadly, though, these posters have not been taken down as some asylum seekers I met earlier this week at the Liberal Democrat Seekers of Sanctuary fringe meeting on Monday were able to verify on Tuesday afternoon.

Speaking at Monday's meeting, Nico, from Zimbabwe, told us that when he saw the posters he felt like he wasn't welcome in this country.

How good would it be if these posters could be taken down early? They only have two weeks to go, but that's two weeks too long in my opinion.

We know that Michael Moore, Secretary of State for Scotland, wrote a strongly worded letter to Home Secretary Theresa May asking for the posters to be taken down. I believe the word "distasteful" was used. A measure of the strength of feeling is that Scottish leader Willie Rennie has, unusually, signed an SNP MSP's motion on the subject. Lord Greaves has also made known his feelings on the subject to the Home Office.

The Liberal Democrats for seekers of sanctuary fringe was very well attended. We enjoyed a delicious Indian buffet in the India Quay restaurant. We heard from several people who have fled persecution to come to this country.  Nico, mentioned above, came here from Zimbabwe at the age of 25 in 2000. His case has been going on for so long that the Zimbabweans can't trace him on their identity database which was set up after he left. This has led the Home Office to refuse his application for asylum. Currently, he's waiting to be evicted from his flat as he isn't entitled to live there even though he's appealing the decision. Imagine not knowing from one day to the next if you are going to have a roof over your head. Nico has no income, is not allowed to work and has to rely on charity for food.

I also spoke to Khalil who was granted leave to remain. He's been in the UK for two years and was destitute and homeless to begin with. He was a human rights journalist in Kurdistan and told me how, after 10 people were killed and over 400 injured at a pro Tunisia/Egypt rally during the Arab Spring, he fled. Initially his application for asylum was refused because he was told that he could go and live in Basra or Baghdad.

The meeting also heard from Roger Roberts who compelled us to speak up for those people. He had also produced a leaflet which he asked us to distribute. Called Setting the Record Straight,it takes down some of the most popular misconceptions and myths surrounding migration. There is an accompanying Facebook page and Twitter account.

Why shouldn't Assange be sent to Sweden?

They don't make them much more bleeding heart liberal than me. I've written many times on human rights issues. Why, then, do I struggle to find much sympathy for the predicament in which Wikileaks founder Julian Assange finds himself?

Assange is currently holed up in the Ecuador's London Embassy. He's been there for two months after he applied for political asylum in that country. Ecuador expects to make its mind up today as to what to do with it. He went there after spending nearly two years fighting a bid to extradite him to Sweden to face charges of sexual assault.

If Ecuador, as expected, grants Assange political asylum, I think this would be totally against the spirit of what asylum is for. It's not there to protect people from facing legitimate criminal charges. Those charges against him, of rape and molestation, are pretty serious and need to be answered.

It's not as if Ecuador has a perfect record on human rights. This year's Amnesty International report shows that its Government is not above locking its critics up.

The UK Government has said that it has the right to enter Ecuador's Embassy to arrest Assange under the terms of the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987. This gives the Secretary of State the power to withdraw consent for an area of land to be treated as diplomatic premises if they think that it's permissible under international law.

Entering the Embassy of another state is a very serious thing to do. There are good reasons, not least the protection of our own diplomats abroad, why premises are protected from the intervention of the host state. Stephen Glenn feels so strongly about this that he has suggested that he might leave the party if the Liberal Democrats in the Government allow Assange's arrest on diplomatic premises.

I'd say what about the rights of the two Swedish women. Do they not have the right to have their cases taken seriously, for the person they say assaulted them to be brought to justice? Why is Assange more important than them?  I find it extraordinary that Stephen can compare a few police nipping inside the Ecuador Embassy in London and picking up someone who is legitimately wanted for trial in Sweden and then leaving peacefully with 52 Americans being held hostage for 444 days in Iran between 1979 and 1981.

Entering a foreign embassy is a serious thing - but in this case, I think there's a legitimate reason. Sweden has a robust justice system and he'll receive a fair trial there.

There is an issue over his further extradition to the US over the Wikileaks issue. Certainly there are some people who want to see him put to death for that. The UK would insist, if he were extradited, that he would not face the death penalty. There is doubt on whether Sweden would make such a stipulation.    Again, we have to leave Sweden to make its own decision on that - but, again, it's Sweden, one of the most liberal places on the planet, and better than us on many counts. If we can't extradite him there, we'd never send anyone anywhere.

Theresa May has to be absolutely 100% sure of her legal grounds - and after the muck up earlier this year over the deadline for  Abu Qatada's appeal, I expect she will make sure that every i is dotted and t crossed - but I see no reason why the Government should permit a nation state to give asylum on a spurious pretext to someone who may be guilty of rape.

Let's not miss the point on Trident

Today's Telegraph reports that a new Government contract for nuclear reactors in submarines brings the renewal of Trident a lot closer and creates a rift with the Liberal Democrats.Well, I'm glad that they recognise our point of view on this, that we fought the last election on a policy of there being no like for like replacement of Trident. Can I suggest that before we get ourselves in a twist about this, we read what Liberal Democrat defence minister Nick Harvey wrote on Liberal Democrat Voice last month. The main decision will not be made until after the next General Election. We have seen to that.

I for one was never entirely comfortable with the notion of no "like for like" replacement of Trident. I have no desire to go shopping in the bargain basement for nuclear weapons. I actually don't think we have any business investing squillions in weapons of mass destruction at all. I want to see our entire nuclear weapons programme ended. No ifs, buts or maybes. Keeping a stock of these weapons is absolutely unjustifiable in my opinion. Why would you want to have missiles whose prime purpose is to cause widespread devastation, death and destruction amongst innocent civilians, people like you and me.

What those of us who feel the same way, whatever party they're in, should be doing is spending the next 3 years building a campaign against a nuclear deterrent in principle. That's going to be a huge issue in the next election. I am far from convinced that we'll be out of the economic mire by then and we will have better things to spend our money on than stellar guided wickedness. The Labour Party needs to think long and hard about whether it can justify it. They may well be haunted by their 1983 manifesto which advocated unilateral nuclear disarmament but we are in a different world now. If the biggest threat we face is from international terrorism, as the US and UK Governments would have us believe, then there is no point investing in more nukes, because they will do nothing to deal with that threat.

My Nationalist friends will no doubt rush to tell me that an independent Scotland wouldn't have any nuclear weapons. How selfish can you get?  As part of the UK, we Scots, who tend to be less convinced by the argument for these things, have a chance to bring about a change of policy which will rid the whole island of them. Narcissistic nationalist nimbyism isn't going  to help make the world non nuclear place. A UK without Scotland would, I think, be less likely to abandon nuclear weapons, leaving all on these islands worse off.

We know that the Tories like to scare people into accepting the unacceptable - just look at Theresa May's comments on the Draft Communications Data Bill (which is only a draft bill due to Nick Clegg putting his foot down). She's clearly trying to convince us that unless she's given unbridled power to snoop on all our Facebook messages, terrorists will run amok. Of course, the people who are really up to no good will be able to circumvent such measures. In the same way, they will build a frightening case for maintenance of the deterrent. The  opponents of nuclear weapons need to build a more compelling, evidence based case for getting rid of them. We don't have long - just around half a year further away than the Independence Referendum. Let's get to it.

Government must not allow Brenda Namigadde to be deported to Uganda

We will stop the deportation of asylum seekers who have had to leave particular countries because their sexual orientation or gender identification puts them at proven risk of imprisonment, torture or execution

There it is, clear as day, from page 18 of the Coalition Agreement. At the time, it was so reassuring to see. Under Labour, LGBT people had disgracefully been told to be discreet if their country of origin took a dim view of their sexuality. It was good to see in black and white that the Coalition, even with Tories in it, took the right, humanitarian approach.

Today the Guardian has a report that Brenda Namigadde, a Ugandan lesbian, faces imminent deportation because a judge doesn't consider that there is enough evidence of homosexuality. I think it's a very worrying development if the judiciary starts to question someone's sexuality. I mean, how on earth do you prove something that by its very nature is private and relationships may have been conducted in secret? People may not be willing to give the names of partners for fear of them being persecuted. In this case, though, there is evidence both of a previous relationship and of persecution because of it.

Theresa May as Home Secretary has discretion to allow someone to remain here in compelling and compassionate circumstances. Do you get more compelling than a direct threat to you from an MP who wants to have LGBT people put to death as the Guardian reports.

I've written to Theresa May, e-mailing her on public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk asking her to use her discretion to allow Brenda to stay in the UK. It would be an outrage to deport someone to a country where a prominent gay rights activist has been brutally murdered only this week.

This is a big test of the Coalition's new policy and I want to see it pass with flying colours.