Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Could Bexley & Sidcup be another by-election punters are getting wrong? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited November 24 in General
imageCould Bexley & Sidcup be another by-election punters are getting wrong? – politicalbetting.com

A week tomorrow voters in Old Bexley and Sidcup go to the polls in the second Tory by-election defence of this parliament. So far betting has been fairly limited with less than £40k being traded on Smarkets and Betfair put together. In the former the odds on the Tories have now moved to a 94% chance and I just wonder whether, once again, punters have this wrong.

Read the full story here

«13

Comments

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,811
    1, 2, 3 ...
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,476
    edited November 24
    Not First
  • No.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,811
    Taz said:

    First

    Indefatigably wrong. I salute you.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    Shows how much I was paying attention - I'd looked at the voting figures, but it wasn't until now I'd actually paid attention to a map and realised Old Bexley and Sidcup is in London.
  • kle4 said:

    Shows how much I was paying attention - I'd looked at the voting figures, but it wasn't until now I'd actually paid attention to a map and realised Old Bexley and Sidcup is in London.

    Always felt like a Kent seat.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 358
    Although I am on Libdems at 3-1 in Salop North, I’m not going near Labour winning Bex & Sid.
    Gotta go, drunken friend just fell through the door.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,236

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
    While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.

    However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
    I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
    This is the relevant part of the article

    A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
    And the key word in this opinion piece is "may".

    Or - alternative idea - the Home Secretary could have the bill amended to remove it as an issue. Why do you think it is that she isn't...?
    Because it isn't as there is an explanatory note in the bill re the RNLI and Coastguard

    Here's the actual bill Big_G, where's the explanatory note?

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0187/210187v1.pdf
    Here

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0141/en/210141en.pdf
    Is this the relevant section?

    397 Subsection 4 amends section 25 of the 1971 Act, (criminal offence of assisting unlawful immigration)
    to include arrival in the UK as part of the definition of “immigration law”. The meaning of
    “immigration law” as provided in current section 25(2) means a law which controls non-UK
    nationals’ entitlement to enter the state, transit across the state, or be in the state. This limits the
    application of section 25 in practice. As noted regarding the offence of entry without leave, migrants
    who are intercepted at sea and are brought into an immigration control area may not have “entered”
    the UK unlawfully and so a person facilitating their journey may not be charged with assisting a
    breach of immigration law for that offence. This amendment will ensure that the offence of
    facilitation also applies to those assisting persons to arrive in the UK without a valid entry clearance.
    What that *seems* to say to me is that if you pick up some migrants at sea, and deliver them to an "immigration control area" then you "may not be charged with assisting a breach of immigration law"

    Which seems a sensible way of dealing with this - pick up some migrants in a lifesaving situation, OK. If you put them on a random beach, not OK. If you hand them over to the immigration types, OK.
  • It will be interesting to know how if Boris's CBI speech is being raised with canvassers. Ironically, if it is right that Boris intended it as a dead cat to distract from the changes to the social care bill, then he might have thrown away a chance to shore up support among the more affluent voters of Old Bexley and Sidcup.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,236
    Further to the vaccination discussion last thread

    England numbers

    Age First Second Gap
    12 to 15 42.76% 0.58% 42.18%
    16 to 17 64.80% 16.01% 48.79%
    18 to 24 76.60% 66.04% 10.55%
    25 to 29 78.20% 69.97% 8.23%
    30 to 34 85.21% 77.82% 7.40%
    35 to 39 87.62% 81.79% 5.83%
    40 to 44 92.76% 88.13% 4.63%
    45 to 49 89.91% 86.57% 3.34%
    50 to 54 94.75% 92.17% 2.57%
    55 to 59 97.34% 94.99% 2.35%
    60 to 64 99.46% 97.33% 2.12%
    65 to 69 96.90% 95.66% 1.24%
    70 to 74 96.12% 95.30% 0.82%
    75 to 79 102.61% 101.84% 0.77%
    80 to 84 95.06% 94.33% 0.73%
    85 to 89 96.00% 95.17% 0.84%
    90+ 90.75% 89.74% 1.00%
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,899

    It will be interesting to know how if Boris's CBI speech is being raised with canvassers. Ironically, if it is right that Boris intended it as a dead cat to distract from the changes to the social care bill, then he might have thrown away a chance to shore up support among the more affluent voters of Old Bexley and Sidcup.

    "...Boris intended it as a dead cat" implies a level of planning. So I think we can rule that one out.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,899

    Further to the vaccination discussion last thread

    England numbers

    Age First Second Gap
    12 to 15 42.76% 0.58% 42.18%
    16 to 17 64.80% 16.01% 48.79%
    18 to 24 76.60% 66.04% 10.55%
    25 to 29 78.20% 69.97% 8.23%
    30 to 34 85.21% 77.82% 7.40%
    35 to 39 87.62% 81.79% 5.83%
    40 to 44 92.76% 88.13% 4.63%
    45 to 49 89.91% 86.57% 3.34%
    50 to 54 94.75% 92.17% 2.57%
    55 to 59 97.34% 94.99% 2.35%
    60 to 64 99.46% 97.33% 2.12%
    65 to 69 96.90% 95.66% 1.24%
    70 to 74 96.12% 95.30% 0.82%
    75 to 79 102.61% 101.84% 0.77%
    80 to 84 95.06% 94.33% 0.73%
    85 to 89 96.00% 95.17% 0.84%
    90+ 90.75% 89.74% 1.00%

    Impressive that over 100% of 75-79 yos have been vaccinated. I am sure there is a good explanation somewhere.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 1,274
    I think, to keep the site management happy, that LAB will win Bexley by 40 per cent and in Shropshire N LD by 30 per cent. But Boris will still win GE 2023/4 👍
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,561

    It will be interesting to know how if Boris's CBI speech is being raised with canvassers. Ironically, if it is right that Boris intended it as a dead cat to distract from the changes to the social care bill, then he might have thrown away a chance to shore up support among the more affluent voters of Old Bexley and Sidcup.

    @BorisJohnson_MP: I'm struggling a bit with writing my next speech. I can't decide whether to focus on Basil Brush or Dangermouse.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,366
    Evening all :)

    On my way home tonight I am confronted by this leading story in the Standard:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-borough-breakdown-unvaccinated-hotspots-covid-b967975.html?itm_source=Internal&itm_channel=homepage_trending_article_component&itm_campaign=trending_section&itm_content=3

    Okay, I am told 130,000 adults aged 18 or over in Newham have not had any vaccination. How is this figure derived, how can it be verified?

    The Government's own website claims 60% have had a first vaccination which equates to 228,589 people so that would make the adult population 380,000 which seems a bit on the high side given the projected total population of 365,000 so that puts a huge question mark over the numbers.

    I presume the Standard have found the vaccination figures and subtracted them from the population estimate - er, no, that's the whole population including children and Newham is a "young" area with a lot of children.

    The GLA estimate for the over 16 population is 284,000 (roughly 78% of the total) so to have first vaccinated 229,000 (let's say) would suggest 80.6% of the adult population first vaccinated which, while still below the national average, is more respectable.

    So, the 130,000 is in fact 57,000 (if that) so the Standard's figures represent, I would argue, a significant economising of the truth. That's not to say there isn't a problem with a minority not having been vaccinated but that doesn't excuse some sloppy journalism and some dodgy analysis (I'm not sure mine is foolproof either ).
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,236

    Further to the vaccination discussion last thread

    England numbers

    Age First Second Gap
    12 to 15 42.76% 0.58% 42.18%
    16 to 17 64.80% 16.01% 48.79%
    18 to 24 76.60% 66.04% 10.55%
    25 to 29 78.20% 69.97% 8.23%
    30 to 34 85.21% 77.82% 7.40%
    35 to 39 87.62% 81.79% 5.83%
    40 to 44 92.76% 88.13% 4.63%
    45 to 49 89.91% 86.57% 3.34%
    50 to 54 94.75% 92.17% 2.57%
    55 to 59 97.34% 94.99% 2.35%
    60 to 64 99.46% 97.33% 2.12%
    65 to 69 96.90% 95.66% 1.24%
    70 to 74 96.12% 95.30% 0.82%
    75 to 79 102.61% 101.84% 0.77%
    80 to 84 95.06% 94.33% 0.73%
    85 to 89 96.00% 95.17% 0.84%
    90+ 90.75% 89.74% 1.00%

    Impressive that over 100% of 75-79 yos have been vaccinated. I am sure there is a good explanation somewhere.
    We were talking about this in the last thread. Because I am using ONS mid 2020 population estimates, and the vaccination program is using medical records which have a massive duplication problem. So they overestimate the population of the country by several million... and ONS 2020, it seems, a slight underestimate in a couple of age groups.

    In Scotland they took the approach that anything over 100% was rounded to .... 100% - see the bottom of https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations?areaType=nation&areaName=Scotland#card-vaccination_uptake_by_vaccination_date_age_demographics
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,579

    Further to the vaccination discussion last thread

    England numbers

    Age First Second Gap
    12 to 15 42.76% 0.58% 42.18%
    16 to 17 64.80% 16.01% 48.79%
    18 to 24 76.60% 66.04% 10.55%
    25 to 29 78.20% 69.97% 8.23%
    30 to 34 85.21% 77.82% 7.40%
    35 to 39 87.62% 81.79% 5.83%
    40 to 44 92.76% 88.13% 4.63%
    45 to 49 89.91% 86.57% 3.34%
    50 to 54 94.75% 92.17% 2.57%
    55 to 59 97.34% 94.99% 2.35%
    60 to 64 99.46% 97.33% 2.12%
    65 to 69 96.90% 95.66% 1.24%
    70 to 74 96.12% 95.30% 0.82%
    75 to 79 102.61% 101.84% 0.77%
    80 to 84 95.06% 94.33% 0.73%
    85 to 89 96.00% 95.17% 0.84%
    90+ 90.75% 89.74% 1.00%

    Impressive that over 100% of 75-79 yos have been vaccinated. I am sure there is a good explanation somewhere.
    There is - our population denominators are wrong. We literally do not know how many people there are in the country.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,236
    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    On my way home tonight I am confronted by this leading story in the Standard:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-borough-breakdown-unvaccinated-hotspots-covid-b967975.html?itm_source=Internal&itm_channel=homepage_trending_article_component&itm_campaign=trending_section&itm_content=3

    Okay, I am told 130,000 adults aged 18 or over in Newham have not had any vaccination. How is this figure derived, how can it be verified?

    The Government's own website claims 60% have had a first vaccination which equates to 228,589 people so that would make the adult population 380,000 which seems a bit on the high side given the projected total population of 365,000 so that puts a huge question mark over the numbers.

    I presume the Standard have found the vaccination figures and subtracted them from the population estimate - er, no, that's the whole population including children and Newham is a "young" area with a lot of children.

    The GLA estimate for the over 16 population is 284,000 (roughly 78% of the total) so to have first vaccinated 229,000 (let's say) would suggest 80.6% of the adult population first vaccinated which, while still below the national average, is more respectable.

    So, the 130,000 is in fact 57,000 (if that) so the Standard's figures represent, I would argue, a significant economising of the truth. That's not to say there isn't a problem with a minority not having been vaccinated but that doesn't excuse some sloppy journalism and some dodgy analysis (I'm not sure mine is foolproof either ).

    I think what you are seeing there is the gap between the medical records numbers (lots of duplications) and the reality.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,242

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
    While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.

    However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
    I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
    This is the relevant part of the article

    A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
    And the key word in this opinion piece is "may".

    Or - alternative idea - the Home Secretary could have the bill amended to remove it as an issue. Why do you think it is that she isn't...?
    Because it isn't as there is an explanatory note in the bill re the RNLI and Coastguard

    Here's the actual bill Big_G, where's the explanatory note?

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0187/210187v1.pdf
    Here

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0141/en/210141en.pdf
    Is this the relevant section?

    397 Subsection 4 amends section 25 of the 1971 Act, (criminal offence of assisting unlawful immigration)
    to include arrival in the UK as part of the definition of “immigration law”. The meaning of
    “immigration law” as provided in current section 25(2) means a law which controls non-UK
    nationals’ entitlement to enter the state, transit across the state, or be in the state. This limits the
    application of section 25 in practice. As noted regarding the offence of entry without leave, migrants
    who are intercepted at sea and are brought into an immigration control area may not have “entered”
    the UK unlawfully and so a person facilitating their journey may not be charged with assisting a
    breach of immigration law for that offence. This amendment will ensure that the offence of
    facilitation also applies to those assisting persons to arrive in the UK without a valid entry clearance.
    What that *seems* to say to me is that if you pick up some migrants at sea, and deliver them to an "immigration control area" then you "may not be charged with assisting a breach of immigration law"

    Which seems a sensible way of dealing with this - pick up some migrants in a lifesaving situation, OK. If you put them on a random beach, not OK. If you hand them over to the immigration types, OK.
    In this context does 'may not' mean definitely will not or is it dependent on the whims and foibles of who is interpreting the law?
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,701
    On topic, can't see it. Tories will be worried about another C&A, and I can't imagine this seat being friendly to Labour.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,228
    IanB2 said:

    It will be interesting to know how if Boris's CBI speech is being raised with canvassers. Ironically, if it is right that Boris intended it as a dead cat to distract from the changes to the social care bill, then he might have thrown away a chance to shore up support among the more affluent voters of Old Bexley and Sidcup.

    @BorisJohnson_MP: I'm struggling a bit with writing my next speech. I can't decide whether to focus on Basil Brush or Dangermouse.
    Any of these silly references to children's TV and it will be time for Tubby Bye Bye.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,306
    First
  • eekeek Posts: 15,853
    MrEd said:

    On topic, can't see it. Tories will be worried about another C&A, and I can't imagine this seat being friendly to Labour.

    Yep none of these byelections are ones that the Tories will lose.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,500
    They were wrong about Hartlepool too. There isn't so much a Tory bias amongst punters, as a bias to the status quo ante.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 905

    kle4 said:

    BIB, this is something I've been flagging up for ages.

    UK and France at odds over migration policy yet again tonight.

    UK Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (tougher) to deter channel crossings.

    French Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (less tough) to deter channel crossings.

    Which is it?

    UK govt’s argument is that making asylum applications harder deters migrants from trying an illegal route.

    French argument is that UK system is already too tough as it requires migrants to be on UK soil before applying, incentivising crossings.

    France says the UK had 30k asylum applications per year pre-Covid.

    France processed 120k applications.

    The two countries have similar sized populations.

    France uses these stats to argue the UK isn’t taking its fair share.


    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1463593384505921547

    Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
    The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
    Well, yes and no.

    Consider the possibilities:

    1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies.
    2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.

    Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.

    The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,864
    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    On my way home tonight I am confronted by this leading story in the Standard:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-borough-breakdown-unvaccinated-hotspots-covid-b967975.html?itm_source=Internal&itm_channel=homepage_trending_article_component&itm_campaign=trending_section&itm_content=3

    Okay, I am told 130,000 adults aged 18 or over in Newham have not had any vaccination. How is this figure derived, how can it be verified?

    The Government's own website claims 60% have had a first vaccination which equates to 228,589 people so that would make the adult population 380,000 which seems a bit on the high side given the projected total population of 365,000 so that puts a huge question mark over the numbers.

    I presume the Standard have found the vaccination figures and subtracted them from the population estimate - er, no, that's the whole population including children and Newham is a "young" area with a lot of children.

    The GLA estimate for the over 16 population is 284,000 (roughly 78% of the total) so to have first vaccinated 229,000 (let's say) would suggest 80.6% of the adult population first vaccinated which, while still below the national average, is more respectable.

    So, the 130,000 is in fact 57,000 (if that) so the Standard's figures represent, I would argue, a significant economising of the truth. That's not to say there isn't a problem with a minority not having been vaccinated but that doesn't excuse some sloppy journalism and some dodgy analysis (I'm not sure mine is foolproof either ).

    It will be based on the dashboard which used NIMS as the denominator. Those numbers are worse than useless, seriously. One of the PHE studies used NIMS as the denominator for vaccine efficacy and it completely messed up the vaccinated vs unvaccinated stats because it overestimated the number of unvaccinated people by a very significant degree, especially in the 20-50 age range.

    I still don't understand why NIMS is being used, it's a really niche question but I really wish someone in the media gets an answer on it, ONS 2020 might have a few quirks (see the 101% of 70-80 total vaccinated as an example) but it's on the whole a lot more accurate and we accept that there are ~67.5m people in the UK vs NIMS which rates it at closer to 75m iirc.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,366


    There is - our population denominators are wrong. We literally do not know how many people there are in the country.

    I presume we are still working off the baseline of 2011 census data and have applied extrapolations to that. The 2021 census data is still being crunched and the first releases won't be until the spring:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/census/censustransformationprogramme/census2021outputs/abouttheteam

    I suspect we'll be able to refine our population and demographic data from then. It's unfortunate the pandemic occurred right at the end of the census cycle.

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,236
    edited November 24
    MaxPB said:

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    On my way home tonight I am confronted by this leading story in the Standard:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-borough-breakdown-unvaccinated-hotspots-covid-b967975.html?itm_source=Internal&itm_channel=homepage_trending_article_component&itm_campaign=trending_section&itm_content=3

    Okay, I am told 130,000 adults aged 18 or over in Newham have not had any vaccination. How is this figure derived, how can it be verified?

    The Government's own website claims 60% have had a first vaccination which equates to 228,589 people so that would make the adult population 380,000 which seems a bit on the high side given the projected total population of 365,000 so that puts a huge question mark over the numbers.

    I presume the Standard have found the vaccination figures and subtracted them from the population estimate - er, no, that's the whole population including children and Newham is a "young" area with a lot of children.

    The GLA estimate for the over 16 population is 284,000 (roughly 78% of the total) so to have first vaccinated 229,000 (let's say) would suggest 80.6% of the adult population first vaccinated which, while still below the national average, is more respectable.

    So, the 130,000 is in fact 57,000 (if that) so the Standard's figures represent, I would argue, a significant economising of the truth. That's not to say there isn't a problem with a minority not having been vaccinated but that doesn't excuse some sloppy journalism and some dodgy analysis (I'm not sure mine is foolproof either ).

    It will be based on the dashboard which used NIMS as the denominator. Those numbers are worse than useless, seriously. One of the PHE studies used NIMS as the denominator for vaccine efficacy and it completely messed up the vaccinated vs unvaccinated stats because it overestimated the number of unvaccinated people by a very significant degree, especially in the 20-50 age range.

    I still don't understand why NIMS is being used, it's a really niche question but I really wish someone in the media gets an answer on it, ONS 2020 might have a few quirks (see the 101% of 70-80 total vaccinated as an example) but it's on the whole a lot more accurate and we accept that there are ~67.5m people in the UK vs NIMS which rates it at closer to 75m iirc.
    From the ONS 2020 data

    Code,Name,Geography,All ages,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90+
    E09000025,Newham,London Borough,355266,5441,5301,5353,5387,5411,5250,5462,5408,5328,4649,4217,4300,4406,4199,4165,4154,3985,4098,3893,4066,4306,4589,5052,5865,6537,6614,6907,7117,7043,7743,7989,8130,8029,7754,7923,7798,7497,7237,6783,6013,5706,5351,4862,4697,4688,4319,4215,4045,4166,4235,4227,4158,3995,3805,3654,3509,3480,3319,3112,3101,2920,2729,2640,2580,2390,2059,1949,1848,1852,1690,1666,1362,1444,1384,1137,1043,1018,932,937,787,817,779,749,688,589,522,478,358,381,303,1192

    So total population of 355,266

    65,913 under 12
    293,759 12+
    276,835 16+
    268,752 18+
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,236

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
    While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.

    However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
    I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
    This is the relevant part of the article

    A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
    And the key word in this opinion piece is "may".

    Or - alternative idea - the Home Secretary could have the bill amended to remove it as an issue. Why do you think it is that she isn't...?
    Because it isn't as there is an explanatory note in the bill re the RNLI and Coastguard

    Here's the actual bill Big_G, where's the explanatory note?

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0187/210187v1.pdf
    Here

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0141/en/210141en.pdf
    Is this the relevant section?

    397 Subsection 4 amends section 25 of the 1971 Act, (criminal offence of assisting unlawful immigration)
    to include arrival in the UK as part of the definition of “immigration law”. The meaning of
    “immigration law” as provided in current section 25(2) means a law which controls non-UK
    nationals’ entitlement to enter the state, transit across the state, or be in the state. This limits the
    application of section 25 in practice. As noted regarding the offence of entry without leave, migrants
    who are intercepted at sea and are brought into an immigration control area may not have “entered”
    the UK unlawfully and so a person facilitating their journey may not be charged with assisting a
    breach of immigration law for that offence. This amendment will ensure that the offence of
    facilitation also applies to those assisting persons to arrive in the UK without a valid entry clearance.
    What that *seems* to say to me is that if you pick up some migrants at sea, and deliver them to an "immigration control area" then you "may not be charged with assisting a breach of immigration law"

    Which seems a sensible way of dealing with this - pick up some migrants in a lifesaving situation, OK. If you put them on a random beach, not OK. If you hand them over to the immigration types, OK.
    In this context does 'may not' mean definitely will not or is it dependent on the whims and foibles of who is interpreting the law?
    For that you would need a lawyer - we have several around here.....
  • I'm afraid I can't see how the Tories lose this unless Labour wins with something like 35-40% with a massive reform/tory vote split.
    I can see the Tories dipping below 50% but I can't see them losing.

    Something like

    Con 48%
    Lab 31%
    Reform 14%
    Others 7%

    turnout 40% (-30)
  • RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
    While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.

    However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
    I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
    This is the relevant part of the article

    A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
    And the key word in this opinion piece is "may".

    Or - alternative idea - the Home Secretary could have the bill amended to remove it as an issue. Why do you think it is that she isn't...?
    Because it isn't as there is an explanatory note in the bill re the RNLI and Coastguard

    Here's the actual bill Big_G, where's the explanatory note?

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0187/210187v1.pdf
    Here

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0141/en/210141en.pdf
    Is this the relevant section?

    397 Subsection 4 amends section 25 of the 1971 Act, (criminal offence of assisting unlawful immigration)
    to include arrival in the UK as part of the definition of “immigration law”. The meaning of
    “immigration law” as provided in current section 25(2) means a law which controls non-UK
    nationals’ entitlement to enter the state, transit across the state, or be in the state. This limits the
    application of section 25 in practice. As noted regarding the offence of entry without leave, migrants
    who are intercepted at sea and are brought into an immigration control area may not have “entered”
    the UK unlawfully and so a person facilitating their journey may not be charged with assisting a
    breach of immigration law for that offence. This amendment will ensure that the offence of
    facilitation also applies to those assisting persons to arrive in the UK without a valid entry clearance.
    What that *seems* to say to me is that if you pick up some migrants at sea, and deliver them to an "immigration control area" then you "may not be charged with assisting a breach of immigration law"

    Which seems a sensible way of dealing with this - pick up some migrants in a lifesaving situation, OK. If you put them on a random beach, not OK. If you hand them over to the immigration types, OK.
    In this context does 'may not' mean definitely will not or is it dependent on the whims and foibles of who is interpreting the law?
    Someone pointed out a few months ago a lot of people who need rescuing need medical attention so you take them to a hospital/call 999, so by taking them to hospital you're breaking the law as proposed by not taking them to an immigration control area.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,236
    MaxPB said:

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    On my way home tonight I am confronted by this leading story in the Standard:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-borough-breakdown-unvaccinated-hotspots-covid-b967975.html?itm_source=Internal&itm_channel=homepage_trending_article_component&itm_campaign=trending_section&itm_content=3

    Okay, I am told 130,000 adults aged 18 or over in Newham have not had any vaccination. How is this figure derived, how can it be verified?

    The Government's own website claims 60% have had a first vaccination which equates to 228,589 people so that would make the adult population 380,000 which seems a bit on the high side given the projected total population of 365,000 so that puts a huge question mark over the numbers.

    I presume the Standard have found the vaccination figures and subtracted them from the population estimate - er, no, that's the whole population including children and Newham is a "young" area with a lot of children.

    The GLA estimate for the over 16 population is 284,000 (roughly 78% of the total) so to have first vaccinated 229,000 (let's say) would suggest 80.6% of the adult population first vaccinated which, while still below the national average, is more respectable.

    So, the 130,000 is in fact 57,000 (if that) so the Standard's figures represent, I would argue, a significant economising of the truth. That's not to say there isn't a problem with a minority not having been vaccinated but that doesn't excuse some sloppy journalism and some dodgy analysis (I'm not sure mine is foolproof either ).

    It will be based on the dashboard which used NIMS as the denominator. Those numbers are worse than useless, seriously. One of the PHE studies used NIMS as the denominator for vaccine efficacy and it completely messed up the vaccinated vs unvaccinated stats because it overestimated the number of unvaccinated people by a very significant degree, especially in the 20-50 age range.

    I still don't understand why NIMS is being used, it's a really niche question but I really wish someone in the media gets an answer on it, ONS 2020 might have a few quirks (see the 101% of 70-80 total vaccinated as an example) but it's on the whole a lot more accurate and we accept that there are ~67.5m people in the UK vs NIMS which rates it at closer to 75m iirc.
    The hilarious bit is that the abdicates of the NIMS numbers tend to be those who regard the idea that a population of 75 million as a Farangist conspiracy theory.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,501
    ...
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,085
    73K cases in Germany?

    FFFFFFuk

    Lockdown Ist Kommen
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,864

    MaxPB said:

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    On my way home tonight I am confronted by this leading story in the Standard:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-borough-breakdown-unvaccinated-hotspots-covid-b967975.html?itm_source=Internal&itm_channel=homepage_trending_article_component&itm_campaign=trending_section&itm_content=3

    Okay, I am told 130,000 adults aged 18 or over in Newham have not had any vaccination. How is this figure derived, how can it be verified?

    The Government's own website claims 60% have had a first vaccination which equates to 228,589 people so that would make the adult population 380,000 which seems a bit on the high side given the projected total population of 365,000 so that puts a huge question mark over the numbers.

    I presume the Standard have found the vaccination figures and subtracted them from the population estimate - er, no, that's the whole population including children and Newham is a "young" area with a lot of children.

    The GLA estimate for the over 16 population is 284,000 (roughly 78% of the total) so to have first vaccinated 229,000 (let's say) would suggest 80.6% of the adult population first vaccinated which, while still below the national average, is more respectable.

    So, the 130,000 is in fact 57,000 (if that) so the Standard's figures represent, I would argue, a significant economising of the truth. That's not to say there isn't a problem with a minority not having been vaccinated but that doesn't excuse some sloppy journalism and some dodgy analysis (I'm not sure mine is foolproof either ).

    It will be based on the dashboard which used NIMS as the denominator. Those numbers are worse than useless, seriously. One of the PHE studies used NIMS as the denominator for vaccine efficacy and it completely messed up the vaccinated vs unvaccinated stats because it overestimated the number of unvaccinated people by a very significant degree, especially in the 20-50 age range.

    I still don't understand why NIMS is being used, it's a really niche question but I really wish someone in the media gets an answer on it, ONS 2020 might have a few quirks (see the 101% of 70-80 total vaccinated as an example) but it's on the whole a lot more accurate and we accept that there are ~67.5m people in the UK vs NIMS which rates it at closer to 75m iirc.
    From the ONS 2020 data

    Code,Name,Geography,All ages,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90+
    E09000025,Newham,London Borough,355266,5441,5301,5353,5387,5411,5250,5462,5408,5328,4649,4217,4300,4406,4199,4165,4154,3985,4098,3893,4066,4306,4589,5052,5865,6537,6614,6907,7117,7043,7743,7989,8130,8029,7754,7923,7798,7497,7237,6783,6013,5706,5351,4862,4697,4688,4319,4215,4045,4166,4235,4227,4158,3995,3805,3654,3509,3480,3319,3112,3101,2920,2729,2640,2580,2390,2059,1949,1848,1852,1690,1666,1362,1444,1384,1137,1043,1018,932,937,787,817,779,749,688,589,522,478,358,381,303,1192

    So total population of 355,266

    65,913 under 12
    293,759 12+
    268,752 18+
    228k first doses in Newham which means the real rate of first dose vaccination is 78% of all 12+, 221k first doses for 18+ which is a rate of 83%, so all in all not actually that bad.
  • kle4 said:

    Shows how much I was paying attention - I'd looked at the voting figures, but it wasn't until now I'd actually paid attention to a map and realised Old Bexley and Sidcup is in London.

    Always felt like a Kent seat.
    It's been in Greater London since 1965. Just like Ilford North :)
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 1,274
    Leon said:

    73K cases in Germany?

    FFFFFFuk

    Lockdown Ist Kommen

    Lockdown everywhere in Europe Dec confirmed.
  • ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    It will be interesting to know how if Boris's CBI speech is being raised with canvassers. Ironically, if it is right that Boris intended it as a dead cat to distract from the changes to the social care bill, then he might have thrown away a chance to shore up support among the more affluent voters of Old Bexley and Sidcup.

    @BorisJohnson_MP: I'm struggling a bit with writing my next speech. I can't decide whether to focus on Basil Brush or Dangermouse.
    Any of these silly references to children's TV and it will be time for Tubby Bye Bye.
    The Peppa Pig riff did make sense as a metaphor for Boris's Britain. But he gabbled through it as one of any number of bizarre references, and it was the collection that made it unsuitable for the audience or indeed any audience. One joke in a political speech is welcome but not the whole stand-up act. Was it intended as a dead cat? Perhaps but I doubt Boris foresaw just how badly it would be received by his erstwhile allies.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,516
    edited November 24
    No. I was in Old Bexley and Sidcup and the Conservative vote is generally holding up with a few undecideds. James Brokenshire was remembered with affection and there was little move to Labour.

    I would expect a solid Conservative hold with maybe a slight fall in the Tory majority but with RefUK perhaps taking 3rd. It is a strong Leave seat unlike Chesham and Amersham and the Labour by election machine is also much weaker than Labour's
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,571

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
    While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.

    However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
    I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
    This is the relevant part of the article

    A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
    And the key word in this opinion piece is "may".

    Or - alternative idea - the Home Secretary could have the bill amended to remove it as an issue. Why do you think it is that she isn't...?
    Because it isn't as there is an explanatory note in the bill re the RNLI and Coastguard

    Here's the actual bill Big_G, where's the explanatory note?

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0187/210187v1.pdf
    Here

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0141/en/210141en.pdf
    Is this the relevant section?

    397 Subsection 4 amends section 25 of the 1971 Act, (criminal offence of assisting unlawful immigration)
    to include arrival in the UK as part of the definition of “immigration law”. The meaning of
    “immigration law” as provided in current section 25(2) means a law which controls non-UK
    nationals’ entitlement to enter the state, transit across the state, or be in the state. This limits the
    application of section 25 in practice. As noted regarding the offence of entry without leave, migrants
    who are intercepted at sea and are brought into an immigration control area may not have “entered”
    the UK unlawfully and so a person facilitating their journey may not be charged with assisting a
    breach of immigration law for that offence. This amendment will ensure that the offence of
    facilitation also applies to those assisting persons to arrive in the UK without a valid entry clearance.
    What that *seems* to say to me is that if you pick up some migrants at sea, and deliver them to an "immigration control area" then you "may not be charged with assisting a breach of immigration law"

    Which seems a sensible way of dealing with this - pick up some migrants in a lifesaving situation, OK. If you put them on a random beach, not OK. If you hand them over to the immigration types, OK.
    In this context does 'may not' mean definitely will not or is it dependent on the whims and foibles of who is interpreting the law?
    In any case, that is not the law, just some supplementary comment.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,387
    Agree. Tories should win it but at current odds Labour are value. Don't bet the farm, it's a probable lose. But (IMHO) a better chance than LDs at NS, which I think is a certain Tory hold.
  • ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    It will be interesting to know how if Boris's CBI speech is being raised with canvassers. Ironically, if it is right that Boris intended it as a dead cat to distract from the changes to the social care bill, then he might have thrown away a chance to shore up support among the more affluent voters of Old Bexley and Sidcup.

    @BorisJohnson_MP: I'm struggling a bit with writing my next speech. I can't decide whether to focus on Basil Brush or Dangermouse.
    Any of these silly references to children's TV and it will be time for Tubby Bye Bye.
    The Peppa Pig riff did make sense as a metaphor for Boris's Britain. But he gabbled through it as one of any number of bizarre references, and it was the collection that made it unsuitable for the audience or indeed any audience. One joke in a political speech is welcome but not the whole stand-up act. Was it intended as a dead cat? Perhaps but I doubt Boris foresaw just how badly it would be received by his erstwhile allies.
    "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig!"
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,899
    Leon said:

    73K cases in Germany?

    FFFFFFuk

    Lockdown Ist Kommen

    Zweifellos
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 905

    I'm afraid I can't see how the Tories lose this unless Labour wins with something like 35-40% with a massive reform/tory vote split.
    I can see the Tories dipping below 50% but I can't see them losing.

    Something like

    Con 48%
    Lab 31%
    Reform 14%
    Others 7%

    turnout 40% (-30)

    The Reform Party is moribund. They won't retain their deposit.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,366


    From the ONS 2020 data

    So total population of 355,266

    65,913 under 12
    293,759 12+
    276,835 16+
    268,752 18+

    A little less than the GLA estimate but certainly in the same area - 284,000 16+ versus 277,000 for ONS. Given @MaxPB's comment the ONS might be underestimating marginally, I'm comfortable with the GLA number.

    My point is we have London's only evening newspaper producing headline stories based on obviously doubtful or just plain wrong data so I've called them out to a tiny extent.

    Saying 130,000 adults in Newham have not been vaccinated just isn't supported by the data - it might well be 50,000 and that doesn't mean there's not a problem but it's an order of magnitude less of a problem.

    Okay, if the headline gets people vaccinated, fair enough but it also encourages the mindset the virus is somehow out of control (it isn't) and the rise in cases will lead to renewed restrictions (it won't or shouldn't).

    Today's best number for this observer is the continuing decline in hospitalisations. I know some on here were predicting a sharper fall in cases than has happened and is happening but what we seem to be seeing is a larger number of milder cases and it may well require more booster vaccinations to get that substantial case number reduction but we are certainly moving in a better direction.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,516
    pigeon said:

    I'm afraid I can't see how the Tories lose this unless Labour wins with something like 35-40% with a massive reform/tory vote split.
    I can see the Tories dipping below 50% but I can't see them losing.

    Something like

    Con 48%
    Lab 31%
    Reform 14%
    Others 7%

    turnout 40% (-30)

    The Reform Party is moribund. They won't retain their deposit.
    They are on 5% with Yougov and Old Bexley and Sidcup is ideal for them, I expect RefUK and Tice to beat the LDs for 3rd place
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,361
    edited November 24
    IanB2 said:

    It will be interesting to know how if Boris's CBI speech is being raised with canvassers. Ironically, if it is right that Boris intended it as a dead cat to distract from the changes to the social care bill, then he might have thrown away a chance to shore up support among the more affluent voters of Old Bexley and Sidcup.

    @BorisJohnson_MP: I'm struggling a bit with writing my next speech. I can't decide whether to focus on Basil Brush or Dangermouse.
    I LOVED Dangermouse when I was a kid lol!

    Sir David Jason recently said out of all his roles Dangermouse was his favourite
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,516
    edited November 24

    I'm afraid I can't see how the Tories lose this unless Labour wins with something like 35-40% with a massive reform/tory vote split.
    I can see the Tories dipping below 50% but I can't see them losing.

    Something like

    Con 48%
    Lab 31%
    Reform 14%
    Others 7%

    turnout 40% (-30)

    The last time Labour got over 30% of the vote in Old Bexley and Sidcup was 2001.

    I highly doubt they would get 31%, a smaller rise from 23% in 2019 to 25-30% is more likely on current polls
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 2,430
    Leon said:

    73K cases in Germany?

    FFFFFFuk

    Lockdown Ist Kommen

    Gosh!
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 1,274
    HYUFD said:

    No. I was in Old Bexley and Sidcup and the Conservative vote is generally holding up with a few undecideds. James Brokenshire was remembered with affection and there was little move to Labour.

    I would expect a solid Conservative hold with maybe a slight fall in the Tory majority but with RefUK perhaps taking 3rd. It is a strong Leave seat unlike Chesham and Amersham and the Labour by election machine is also much weaker than Labour's

    Hope you are right HYUFD. You are a nice person who posts fairly and gets a lot of nasty unfair criticism. Unless it's from me in which case it's entirely justified 😀👍
  • Scott_xP said:

    ...

    Are they trying to use "Buyer's Remorse" as a wider attack line? Cute - supposedly Downing Street threatened to sue them over that then backed off.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,228
    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    There's nobody on this board who hates Johnson more than I do.

    But for the New European to post that he's having a bad day is pretty much the equivalent of the Morning Star saying that we should nationalise all industry and shoot the Jews.

    And for much the same reason.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,701
    HYUFD said:

    No. I was in Old Bexley and Sidcup and the Conservative vote is generally holding up with a few undecideds. James Brokenshire was remembered with affection and there was little move to Labour.

    I would expect a solid Conservative hold with maybe a slight fall in the Tory majority but with RefUK perhaps taking 3rd. It is a strong Leave seat unlike Chesham and Amersham and the Labour by election machine is also much weaker than Labour's

    Cheers @HYFUD. Always good to get the view of someone on the ground. I think the 12/1 is wasted money.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,228
    HYUFD said:

    No. I was in Old Bexley and Sidcup and the Conservative vote is generally holding up with a few undecideds. James Brokenshire was remembered with affection and there was little move to Labour.

    I would expect a solid Conservative hold with maybe a slight fall in the Tory majority but with RefUK perhaps taking 3rd. It is a strong Leave seat unlike Chesham and Amersham and the Labour by election machine is also much weaker than Labour's

    Typo?
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,701
    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    What's the circulation of the New European?

    That paper reminds me of being at running club on a glorious Sunday morning at 9am, running up a steep hill and hearing the ardent Remainer (who bored even those who had voted Remain) moaning about some Brexit act. It just cannot help itself.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,811

    Leon said:

    73K cases in Germany?

    FFFFFFuk

    Lockdown Ist Kommen

    Zweifellos
    in pik
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,516
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    No. I was in Old Bexley and Sidcup and the Conservative vote is generally holding up with a few undecideds. James Brokenshire was remembered with affection and there was little move to Labour.

    I would expect a solid Conservative hold with maybe a slight fall in the Tory majority but with RefUK perhaps taking 3rd. It is a strong Leave seat unlike Chesham and Amersham and the Labour by election machine is also much weaker than Labour's

    Typo?
    Apologies, I meant weaker than the LDs
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,387

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
    While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.

    However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
    I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
    This is the relevant part of the article

    A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
    And the key word in this opinion piece is "may".

    Or - alternative idea - the Home Secretary could have the bill amended to remove it as an issue. Why do you think it is that she isn't...?
    Because it isn't as there is an explanatory note in the bill re the RNLI and Coastguard

    Here's the actual bill Big_G, where's the explanatory note?

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0187/210187v1.pdf
    Here

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0141/en/210141en.pdf
    Is this the relevant section?

    397 Subsection 4 amends section 25 of the 1971 Act, (criminal offence of assisting unlawful immigration)
    to include arrival in the UK as part of the definition of “immigration law”. The meaning of
    “immigration law” as provided in current section 25(2) means a law which controls non-UK
    nationals’ entitlement to enter the state, transit across the state, or be in the state. This limits the
    application of section 25 in practice. As noted regarding the offence of entry without leave, migrants
    who are intercepted at sea and are brought into an immigration control area may not have “entered”
    the UK unlawfully and so a person facilitating their journey may not be charged with assisting a
    breach of immigration law for that offence. This amendment will ensure that the offence of
    facilitation also applies to those assisting persons to arrive in the UK without a valid entry clearance.
    What that *seems* to say to me is that if you pick up some migrants at sea, and deliver them to an "immigration control area" then you "may not be charged with assisting a breach of immigration law"

    Which seems a sensible way of dealing with this - pick up some migrants in a lifesaving situation, OK. If you put them on a random beach, not OK. If you hand them over to the immigration types, OK.
    In this context does 'may not' mean definitely will not or is it dependent on the whims and foibles of who is interpreting the law?
    For that you would need a lawyer - we have several around here.....
    The term 'may not be charged' in law speak means 'can't be'.

  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,701
    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    BIB, this is something I've been flagging up for ages.

    UK and France at odds over migration policy yet again tonight.

    UK Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (tougher) to deter channel crossings.

    French Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (less tough) to deter channel crossings.

    Which is it?

    UK govt’s argument is that making asylum applications harder deters migrants from trying an illegal route.

    French argument is that UK system is already too tough as it requires migrants to be on UK soil before applying, incentivising crossings.

    France says the UK had 30k asylum applications per year pre-Covid.

    France processed 120k applications.

    The two countries have similar sized populations.

    France uses these stats to argue the UK isn’t taking its fair share.


    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1463593384505921547

    Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
    The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
    Well, yes and no.

    Consider the possibilities:

    1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies.
    2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.

    Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.

    The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
    And with security risks assessed. Which is hard, as we are seeing with the Liverpool bomber (converts to Christianity, claims asylum, reverts back to Islam, tries a suicide bombing).

    Sorry to sound crass given the horrendous circumstances but the UK has the right to accept who comes in and who doesn't. France wants the problem somewhere else. Anyone with any experience of the French Police / State in general knows that, if they are truly against something, they will use all force necessary. They just can't be arsed.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,561
    BBC: Britain could face shortage of wine and spirits at Christmas, a drinks trade body has warned.

    In a letter to Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association (WSTA) said rising costs and supply chain chaos have held up deliveries.

    Imports were now taking up to five times longer than a year ago, it said. The letter was co-signed by 49 firms, including Pernod Ricard, Moët Hennessy and the Wine Society.

    It said the sector has been badly affected by the HGV driver shortage crisis, which the industry has blamed on factors including Covid and Brexit.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,085
    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    BIB, this is something I've been flagging up for ages.

    UK and France at odds over migration policy yet again tonight.

    UK Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (tougher) to deter channel crossings.

    French Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (less tough) to deter channel crossings.

    Which is it?

    UK govt’s argument is that making asylum applications harder deters migrants from trying an illegal route.

    French argument is that UK system is already too tough as it requires migrants to be on UK soil before applying, incentivising crossings.

    France says the UK had 30k asylum applications per year pre-Covid.

    France processed 120k applications.

    The two countries have similar sized populations.

    France uses these stats to argue the UK isn’t taking its fair share.


    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1463593384505921547

    Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
    The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
    Well, yes and no.

    Consider the possibilities:

    1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies.
    2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.

    Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.

    The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
    Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel

    It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you

    Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection

    It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly


  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,236
    edited November 24
    stodge said:


    From the ONS 2020 data

    So total population of 355,266

    65,913 under 12
    293,759 12+
    276,835 16+
    268,752 18+

    A little less than the GLA estimate but certainly in the same area - 284,000 16+ versus 277,000 for ONS. Given @MaxPB's comment the ONS might be underestimating marginally, I'm comfortable with the GLA number.

    My point is we have London's only evening newspaper producing headline stories based on obviously doubtful or just plain wrong data so I've called them out to a tiny extent.

    Saying 130,000 adults in Newham have not been vaccinated just isn't supported by the data - it might well be 50,000 and that doesn't mean there's not a problem but it's an order of magnitude less of a problem.

    Okay, if the headline gets people vaccinated, fair enough but it also encourages the mindset the virus is somehow out of control (it isn't) and the rise in cases will lead to renewed restrictions (it won't or shouldn't).

    Today's best number for this observer is the continuing decline in hospitalisations. I know some on here were predicting a sharper fall in cases than has happened and is happening but what we seem to be seeing is a larger number of milder cases and it may well require more booster vaccinations to get that substantial case number reduction but we are certainly moving in a better direction.
    The rise is cases is nearly all among unvaccinated children.

    The wrinkles are seeing cases fall, quite steadily.

    This is why hospitalisations are heading down. The correlation between the groups that are falling and the level of boosters is quite remarkable.

    image
  • MrEd said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    What's the circulation of the New European?

    That paper reminds me of being at running club on a glorious Sunday morning at 9am, running up a steep hill and hearing the ardent Remainer (who bored even those who had voted Remain) moaning about some Brexit act. It just cannot help itself.
    Scott.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,864
    stodge said:


    From the ONS 2020 data

    So total population of 355,266

    65,913 under 12
    293,759 12+
    276,835 16+
    268,752 18+

    A little less than the GLA estimate but certainly in the same area - 284,000 16+ versus 277,000 for ONS. Given @MaxPB's comment the ONS might be underestimating marginally, I'm comfortable with the GLA number.

    My point is we have London's only evening newspaper producing headline stories based on obviously doubtful or just plain wrong data so I've called them out to a tiny extent.

    Saying 130,000 adults in Newham have not been vaccinated just isn't supported by the data - it might well be 50,000 and that doesn't mean there's not a problem but it's an order of magnitude less of a problem.

    Okay, if the headline gets people vaccinated, fair enough but it also encourages the mindset the virus is somehow out of control (it isn't) and the rise in cases will lead to renewed restrictions (it won't or shouldn't).

    Today's best number for this observer is the continuing decline in hospitalisations. I know some on here were predicting a sharper fall in cases than has happened and is happening but what we seem to be seeing is a larger number of milder cases and it may well require more booster vaccinations to get that substantial case number reduction but we are certainly moving in a better direction.
    I think the ONS vs GLA isn't exactly a huge deal. As you say, it's knowingly using an incorrect denominator like NIMS which is a problem.

    As for cases, I think the fact that schools are open, the economy is open and mask wearing seems to be non-existent now, even on the tube with cases only rising very slightly is a big victory. In fact the current R looks to have dropped to about 1 and we're still doing over 1m booster shots every 3 days plus we really are running out of unvaccinated people to get infected meaning the virus is now having to contend with vaccinated hosts that have got full immunity from three doses, high level immunity from two doses or partial immunity from one dose. That puts a pretty big brake on onwards transmission, even someone who is 30% less likely to pass it to other people with one dose of AZ/Pfizer reduces the base R by a pretty big number, when you get to the triple dosed it's more like a 90% reduction in transmission (at least by the modelled number).
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,701
    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    BIB, this is something I've been flagging up for ages.

    UK and France at odds over migration policy yet again tonight.

    UK Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (tougher) to deter channel crossings.

    French Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (less tough) to deter channel crossings.

    Which is it?

    UK govt’s argument is that making asylum applications harder deters migrants from trying an illegal route.

    French argument is that UK system is already too tough as it requires migrants to be on UK soil before applying, incentivising crossings.

    France says the UK had 30k asylum applications per year pre-Covid.

    France processed 120k applications.

    The two countries have similar sized populations.

    France uses these stats to argue the UK isn’t taking its fair share.


    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1463593384505921547

    Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
    The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
    Well, yes and no.

    Consider the possibilities:

    1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies.
    2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.

    Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.

    The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
    Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel

    It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you

    Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection

    It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly


    Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,366
    HYUFD said:

    No. I was in Old Bexley and Sidcup and the Conservative vote is generally holding up with a few undecideds. James Brokenshire was remembered with affection and there was little move to Labour.

    I would expect a solid Conservative hold with maybe a slight fall in the Tory majority but with RefUK perhaps taking 3rd. It is a strong Leave seat unlike Chesham and Amersham and the Labour by election machine is also much weaker than Labour's

    Do you concede the possibility some disillusioned Conservatives might support Richard Tice as a protest vote while others might simply abstain?

    The net effect would be a fall in the Conservative Party vote and vote share to something akin to @Gary_Burton's prediction? Turnout in the constituency at general elections is generally 70% - I suspect the by-election turnout will be substantially lower.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 3,001
    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    There's nobody on this board who hates Johnson more than I do.

    But for the New European to post that he's having a bad day is pretty much the equivalent of the Morning Star saying that we should nationalise all industry and shoot the Jews.

    And for much the same reason.
    BiB - that's a highly contentious statement. I suspect the competition is pretty stiff.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,361
    IanB2 said:

    BBC: Britain could face shortage of wine and spirits at Christmas, a drinks trade body has warned.

    In a letter to Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association (WSTA) said rising costs and supply chain chaos have held up deliveries.

    Imports were now taking up to five times longer than a year ago, it said. The letter was co-signed by 49 firms, including Pernod Ricard, Moët Hennessy and the Wine Society.

    It said the sector has been badly affected by the HGV driver shortage crisis, which the industry has blamed on factors including Covid and Brexit.

    LOL! Is this going to end up like the imaginary Turkey shortage?
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,701

    MrEd said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    What's the circulation of the New European?

    That paper reminds me of being at running club on a glorious Sunday morning at 9am, running up a steep hill and hearing the ardent Remainer (who bored even those who had voted Remain) moaning about some Brexit act. It just cannot help itself.
    Scott.
    And his dog / cat / hamster
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 2,430
    Sweden has now had its first female MP,

    and she has resigned in less than 24 hours, so will we have a GE?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59400539
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,085
    MrEd said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    What's the circulation of the New European?

    That paper reminds me of being at running club on a glorious Sunday morning at 9am, running up a steep hill and hearing the ardent Remainer (who bored even those who had voted Remain) moaning about some Brexit act. It just cannot help itself.
    There is only one thing more tragic than reading or referring to "the New European", and that is reposting a "New European" front page on a politicalbetting website

    There was probably a New Jacobite news-paper that had a circulation of 93 in 1756. That's the equivalent
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,228

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    There's nobody on this board who hates Johnson more than I do.

    But for the New European to post that he's having a bad day is pretty much the equivalent of the Morning Star saying that we should nationalise all industry and shoot the Jews.

    And for much the same reason.
    BiB - that's a highly contentious statement. I suspect the competition is pretty stiff.
    I'm content with it.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,236
    algarkirk said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
    While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.

    However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
    I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
    This is the relevant part of the article

    A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
    And the key word in this opinion piece is "may".

    Or - alternative idea - the Home Secretary could have the bill amended to remove it as an issue. Why do you think it is that she isn't...?
    Because it isn't as there is an explanatory note in the bill re the RNLI and Coastguard

    Here's the actual bill Big_G, where's the explanatory note?

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0187/210187v1.pdf
    Here

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0141/en/210141en.pdf
    Is this the relevant section?

    397 Subsection 4 amends section 25 of the 1971 Act, (criminal offence of assisting unlawful immigration)
    to include arrival in the UK as part of the definition of “immigration law”. The meaning of
    “immigration law” as provided in current section 25(2) means a law which controls non-UK
    nationals’ entitlement to enter the state, transit across the state, or be in the state. This limits the
    application of section 25 in practice. As noted regarding the offence of entry without leave, migrants
    who are intercepted at sea and are brought into an immigration control area may not have “entered”
    the UK unlawfully and so a person facilitating their journey may not be charged with assisting a
    breach of immigration law for that offence. This amendment will ensure that the offence of
    facilitation also applies to those assisting persons to arrive in the UK without a valid entry clearance.
    What that *seems* to say to me is that if you pick up some migrants at sea, and deliver them to an "immigration control area" then you "may not be charged with assisting a breach of immigration law"

    Which seems a sensible way of dealing with this - pick up some migrants in a lifesaving situation, OK. If you put them on a random beach, not OK. If you hand them over to the immigration types, OK.
    In this context does 'may not' mean definitely will not or is it dependent on the whims and foibles of who is interpreting the law?
    For that you would need a lawyer - we have several around here.....
    The term 'may not be charged' in law speak means 'can't be'.

    So you are saying that it is definite?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,571
    algarkirk said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
    While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.

    However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
    I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
    This is the relevant part of the article

    A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
    And the key word in this opinion piece is "may".

    Or - alternative idea - the Home Secretary could have the bill amended to remove it as an issue. Why do you think it is that she isn't...?
    Because it isn't as there is an explanatory note in the bill re the RNLI and Coastguard

    Here's the actual bill Big_G, where's the explanatory note?

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0187/210187v1.pdf
    Here

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0141/en/210141en.pdf
    Is this the relevant section?

    397 Subsection 4 amends section 25 of the 1971 Act, (criminal offence of assisting unlawful immigration)
    to include arrival in the UK as part of the definition of “immigration law”. The meaning of
    “immigration law” as provided in current section 25(2) means a law which controls non-UK
    nationals’ entitlement to enter the state, transit across the state, or be in the state. This limits the
    application of section 25 in practice. As noted regarding the offence of entry without leave, migrants
    who are intercepted at sea and are brought into an immigration control area may not have “entered”
    the UK unlawfully and so a person facilitating their journey may not be charged with assisting a
    breach of immigration law for that offence. This amendment will ensure that the offence of
    facilitation also applies to those assisting persons to arrive in the UK without a valid entry clearance.
    What that *seems* to say to me is that if you pick up some migrants at sea, and deliver them to an "immigration control area" then you "may not be charged with assisting a breach of immigration law"

    Which seems a sensible way of dealing with this - pick up some migrants in a lifesaving situation, OK. If you put them on a random beach, not OK. If you hand them over to the immigration types, OK.
    In this context does 'may not' mean definitely will not or is it dependent on the whims and foibles of who is interpreting the law?
    For that you would need a lawyer - we have several around here.....
    The term 'may not be charged' in law speak means 'can't be'.

    But that is not a proposed law. Merely a supplementary advisory document.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,228
    BigRich said:

    Sweden has now had its first female MP,

    and she has resigned in less than 24 hours, so will we have a GE?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59400539

    Even Theresa May did better than that.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 905
    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    BIB, this is something I've been flagging up for ages.

    UK and France at odds over migration policy yet again tonight.

    UK Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (tougher) to deter channel crossings.

    French Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (less tough) to deter channel crossings.

    Which is it?

    UK govt’s argument is that making asylum applications harder deters migrants from trying an illegal route.

    French argument is that UK system is already too tough as it requires migrants to be on UK soil before applying, incentivising crossings.

    France says the UK had 30k asylum applications per year pre-Covid.

    France processed 120k applications.

    The two countries have similar sized populations.

    France uses these stats to argue the UK isn’t taking its fair share.


    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1463593384505921547

    Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
    The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
    Well, yes and no.

    Consider the possibilities:

    1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies.
    2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.

    Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.

    The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
    Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel

    It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you

    Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection

    It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
    You won't actually find me disagreeing on the topic of offshoring the boat people. Indeed, I'm entirely onboard with the notion of blanket classifying all the boat arrivals as personae non grata and not letting any of them in.

    The Achilles heel in that plan is, of course, that the current Government has no intention of ever embarking upon such a course. Their pathetic, half-hearted attempts at border security - appointing a clandestine non-existent patrol commander, bunging a few million quid at the French interior ministry, and so on - are all for show. They don't want to do the hard graft, it's easier and less expensive to let them all in.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,899
    Leon said:

    MrEd said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    What's the circulation of the New European?

    That paper reminds me of being at running club on a glorious Sunday morning at 9am, running up a steep hill and hearing the ardent Remainer (who bored even those who had voted Remain) moaning about some Brexit act. It just cannot help itself.
    There is only one thing more tragic than reading or referring to "the New European", and that is reposting a "New European" front page on a politicalbetting website

    There was probably a New Jacobite news-paper that had a circulation of 93 in 1756. That's the equivalent
    Don't be such a party-pooper, it cheers some of up! Yes, we know it's got a circulation of seven and has no relevance in the real world but it still made me smile.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,899
    GIN1138 said:

    IanB2 said:

    BBC: Britain could face shortage of wine and spirits at Christmas, a drinks trade body has warned.

    In a letter to Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association (WSTA) said rising costs and supply chain chaos have held up deliveries.

    Imports were now taking up to five times longer than a year ago, it said. The letter was co-signed by 49 firms, including Pernod Ricard, Moët Hennessy and the Wine Society.

    It said the sector has been badly affected by the HGV driver shortage crisis, which the industry has blamed on factors including Covid and Brexit.

    LOL! Is this going to end up like the imaginary Turkey shortage?
    Imaginary turkeys are in short-supply??
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,228

    GIN1138 said:

    IanB2 said:

    BBC: Britain could face shortage of wine and spirits at Christmas, a drinks trade body has warned.

    In a letter to Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association (WSTA) said rising costs and supply chain chaos have held up deliveries.

    Imports were now taking up to five times longer than a year ago, it said. The letter was co-signed by 49 firms, including Pernod Ricard, Moët Hennessy and the Wine Society.

    It said the sector has been badly affected by the HGV driver shortage crisis, which the industry has blamed on factors including Covid and Brexit.

    LOL! Is this going to end up like the imaginary Turkey shortage?
    Imaginary turkeys are in short-supply??
    No shortage of real ones. Look at the Cabinet.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,501
    Wow, how many Brexiteers were triggered by posting a single picture?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,236
    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
    While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.

    However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
    I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
    This is the relevant part of the article

    A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
    And the key word in this opinion piece is "may".

    Or - alternative idea - the Home Secretary could have the bill amended to remove it as an issue. Why do you think it is that she isn't...?
    Because it isn't as there is an explanatory note in the bill re the RNLI and Coastguard

    Here's the actual bill Big_G, where's the explanatory note?

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0187/210187v1.pdf
    Here

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0141/en/210141en.pdf
    Is this the relevant section?

    397 Subsection 4 amends section 25 of the 1971 Act, (criminal offence of assisting unlawful immigration)
    to include arrival in the UK as part of the definition of “immigration law”. The meaning of
    “immigration law” as provided in current section 25(2) means a law which controls non-UK
    nationals’ entitlement to enter the state, transit across the state, or be in the state. This limits the
    application of section 25 in practice. As noted regarding the offence of entry without leave, migrants
    who are intercepted at sea and are brought into an immigration control area may not have “entered”
    the UK unlawfully and so a person facilitating their journey may not be charged with assisting a
    breach of immigration law for that offence. This amendment will ensure that the offence of
    facilitation also applies to those assisting persons to arrive in the UK without a valid entry clearance.
    What that *seems* to say to me is that if you pick up some migrants at sea, and deliver them to an "immigration control area" then you "may not be charged with assisting a breach of immigration law"

    Which seems a sensible way of dealing with this - pick up some migrants in a lifesaving situation, OK. If you put them on a random beach, not OK. If you hand them over to the immigration types, OK.
    In this context does 'may not' mean definitely will not or is it dependent on the whims and foibles of who is interpreting the law?
    For that you would need a lawyer - we have several around here.....
    The term 'may not be charged' in law speak means 'can't be'.

    But that is not a proposed law. Merely a supplementary advisory document.
    That is used to state the intent of the law. The law itself is full of replacing bits in the 1971 act.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,701
    Leon said:

    MrEd said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    What's the circulation of the New European?

    That paper reminds me of being at running club on a glorious Sunday morning at 9am, running up a steep hill and hearing the ardent Remainer (who bored even those who had voted Remain) moaning about some Brexit act. It just cannot help itself.
    There is only one thing more tragic than reading or referring to "the New European", and that is reposting a "New European" front page on a politicalbetting website

    There was probably a New Jacobite news-paper that had a circulation of 93 in 1756. That's the equivalent
    I might buy a copy to boost its circulation by 10%
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,361

    GIN1138 said:

    IanB2 said:

    BBC: Britain could face shortage of wine and spirits at Christmas, a drinks trade body has warned.

    In a letter to Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association (WSTA) said rising costs and supply chain chaos have held up deliveries.

    Imports were now taking up to five times longer than a year ago, it said. The letter was co-signed by 49 firms, including Pernod Ricard, Moët Hennessy and the Wine Society.

    It said the sector has been badly affected by the HGV driver shortage crisis, which the industry has blamed on factors including Covid and Brexit.

    LOL! Is this going to end up like the imaginary Turkey shortage?
    Imaginary turkeys are in short-supply??
    You kidder... 🤣
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,085
    pigeon said:

    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    BIB, this is something I've been flagging up for ages.

    UK and France at odds over migration policy yet again tonight.

    UK Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (tougher) to deter channel crossings.

    French Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (less tough) to deter channel crossings.

    Which is it?

    UK govt’s argument is that making asylum applications harder deters migrants from trying an illegal route.

    French argument is that UK system is already too tough as it requires migrants to be on UK soil before applying, incentivising crossings.

    France says the UK had 30k asylum applications per year pre-Covid.

    France processed 120k applications.

    The two countries have similar sized populations.

    France uses these stats to argue the UK isn’t taking its fair share.


    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1463593384505921547

    Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
    The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
    Well, yes and no.

    Consider the possibilities:

    1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies.
    2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.

    Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.

    The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
    Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel

    It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you

    Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection

    It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
    You won't actually find me disagreeing on the topic of offshoring the boat people. Indeed, I'm entirely onboard with the notion of blanket classifying all the boat arrivals as personae non grata and not letting any of them in.

    The Achilles heel in that plan is, of course, that the current Government has no intention of ever embarking upon such a course. Their pathetic, half-hearted attempts at border security - appointing a clandestine non-existent patrol commander, bunging a few million quid at the French interior ministry, and so on - are all for show. They don't want to do the hard graft, it's easier and less expensive to let them all in.
    Yes, I agree that is the tacit government policy. But it will not hold (and nor would it be sustainable under Starmer - or anyone). From the right you have people enraged that our borders - supposedly "controlled" after Brexit - are pathetically, laughably porous, and from across the spectrum - yes, left and right, few people are evil - you have outrage that so many are dying in the Channel, kids ncluded

    This is the only solution. The Australian method. It's not ideal and it is extremely pricey at first, but it is a nettle that must be grasped. Any UKG will, I reckon, reach the same conclusion in the end
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,387

    algarkirk said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
    While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.

    However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
    I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
    This is the relevant part of the article

    A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
    And the key word in this opinion piece is "may".

    Or - alternative idea - the Home Secretary could have the bill amended to remove it as an issue. Why do you think it is that she isn't...?
    Because it isn't as there is an explanatory note in the bill re the RNLI and Coastguard

    Here's the actual bill Big_G, where's the explanatory note?

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0187/210187v1.pdf
    Here

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0141/en/210141en.pdf
    Is this the relevant section?

    397 Subsection 4 amends section 25 of the 1971 Act, (criminal offence of assisting unlawful immigration)
    to include arrival in the UK as part of the definition of “immigration law”. The meaning of
    “immigration law” as provided in current section 25(2) means a law which controls non-UK
    nationals’ entitlement to enter the state, transit across the state, or be in the state. This limits the
    application of section 25 in practice. As noted regarding the offence of entry without leave, migrants
    who are intercepted at sea and are brought into an immigration control area may not have “entered”
    the UK unlawfully and so a person facilitating their journey may not be charged with assisting a
    breach of immigration law for that offence. This amendment will ensure that the offence of
    facilitation also applies to those assisting persons to arrive in the UK without a valid entry clearance.
    What that *seems* to say to me is that if you pick up some migrants at sea, and deliver them to an "immigration control area" then you "may not be charged with assisting a breach of immigration law"

    Which seems a sensible way of dealing with this - pick up some migrants in a lifesaving situation, OK. If you put them on a random beach, not OK. If you hand them over to the immigration types, OK.
    In this context does 'may not' mean definitely will not or is it dependent on the whims and foibles of who is interpreting the law?
    For that you would need a lawyer - we have several around here.....
    The term 'may not be charged' in law speak means 'can't be'.

    So you are saying that it is definite?
    No, if it isn't in a statute you may be being deceived by spin; I'm afraid I'm not up tom speed on this piece of government drivel. But in lawyer's language if you 'may not' do something it means you can't, and if you 'may' do something it means you can. It doesn't mean you have to guess how someone else will judge it. It doesn't mean 'you might be able to do it, I'll tell you afterwards'. The law doesn't have a language for that outside totalitarian societies.


  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 905
    GIN1138 said:

    IanB2 said:

    BBC: Britain could face shortage of wine and spirits at Christmas, a drinks trade body has warned.

    In a letter to Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association (WSTA) said rising costs and supply chain chaos have held up deliveries.

    Imports were now taking up to five times longer than a year ago, it said. The letter was co-signed by 49 firms, including Pernod Ricard, Moët Hennessy and the Wine Society.

    It said the sector has been badly affected by the HGV driver shortage crisis, which the industry has blamed on factors including Covid and Brexit.

    LOL! Is this going to end up like the imaginary Turkey shortage?
    Most likely yes. We've been threatened with shortages for months and all the supermarket shelves continue to groan with produce, just like they have ever since the system got over the shock of the March 2020 stay at home order.

    I vaguely recall there being reduced availability of some frozen foods around the time of that panic about the carbon dioxide supply. Also, M&S were without chocolate salted caramel pinecones for several weeks, but even they have reappeared. I think that's about it so far.

    Certainly wine is one of the products that has always been in plentiful supply, even at the very apogee of panic buying. The notion that there's going to be a shortage at Christmas, which is now only a month away, is risible.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,899
    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    BIB, this is something I've been flagging up for ages.

    UK and France at odds over migration policy yet again tonight.

    UK Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (tougher) to deter channel crossings.

    French Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (less tough) to deter channel crossings.

    Which is it?

    UK govt’s argument is that making asylum applications harder deters migrants from trying an illegal route.

    French argument is that UK system is already too tough as it requires migrants to be on UK soil before applying, incentivising crossings.

    France says the UK had 30k asylum applications per year pre-Covid.

    France processed 120k applications.

    The two countries have similar sized populations.

    France uses these stats to argue the UK isn’t taking its fair share.


    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1463593384505921547

    Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
    The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
    Well, yes and no.

    Consider the possibilities:

    1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies.
    2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.

    Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.

    The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
    Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel

    It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you

    Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection

    It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly

    For this to be workable we first need to identify a country or territory prepared to host our asylum processing centre.

    Geniune question: is there any evidence any country will do that?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,306
    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    BIB, this is something I've been flagging up for ages.

    UK and France at odds over migration policy yet again tonight.

    UK Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (tougher) to deter channel crossings.

    French Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (less tough) to deter channel crossings.

    Which is it?

    UK govt’s argument is that making asylum applications harder deters migrants from trying an illegal route.

    French argument is that UK system is already too tough as it requires migrants to be on UK soil before applying, incentivising crossings.

    France says the UK had 30k asylum applications per year pre-Covid.

    France processed 120k applications.

    The two countries have similar sized populations.

    France uses these stats to argue the UK isn’t taking its fair share.


    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1463593384505921547

    Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
    The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
    Well, yes and no.

    Consider the possibilities:

    1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies.
    2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.

    Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.

    The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
    Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel

    It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you

    Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection

    It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
    A few weeks ago you were cheerfully talking about the righteousness of death as a Darwinian tool for pruning the genes those who make poor decisions. I don't think you're all that concerned with deaths unless the shroud can be waved in favour of your politics.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,609
    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    BIB, this is something I've been flagging up for ages.

    UK and France at odds over migration policy yet again tonight.

    UK Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (tougher) to deter channel crossings.

    French Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (less tough) to deter channel crossings.

    Which is it?

    UK govt’s argument is that making asylum applications harder deters migrants from trying an illegal route.

    French argument is that UK system is already too tough as it requires migrants to be on UK soil before applying, incentivising crossings.

    France says the UK had 30k asylum applications per year pre-Covid.

    France processed 120k applications.

    The two countries have similar sized populations.

    France uses these stats to argue the UK isn’t taking its fair share.


    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1463593384505921547

    Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
    The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
    Well, yes and no.

    Consider the possibilities:

    1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies.
    2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.

    Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.

    The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
    Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel

    It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you

    Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection

    It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly


    Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
    I don't think that we need to wait for a third country, we should put them straight into assessment camps. Medical and legal services onsite etc, and speed up the whole process. No leaving unless approved. The key is quick assessment before evidence goes cold, and deportation after refusal, not years in the doldrums in Liverpool or elsewhere.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,228
    edited November 24
    ydoethur said:

    BigRich said:

    Sweden has now had its first female MP,

    and she has resigned in less than 24 hours, so will we have a GE?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59400539

    Even Theresa May did better than that.
    On that subject, the late PM of Sweden even falls short of the shortest ever tenure of the office of First Lord of the Treasury: the Earl of Bath, 10th-12th February 1746.

    It was said of Bath that he led 'the most wise and honest of all administrations, the minister having ... never transacted one rash thing; and, what is more marvellous, left as much money in the T[reasur]y as he found in it.'
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,609
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,387
    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption

    These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.

    The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.

    Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.

    Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.

    The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.

    PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
    While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.

    However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
    I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
    This is the relevant part of the article

    A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:

    “[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)

    reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
    And the key word in this opinion piece is "may".

    Or - alternative idea - the Home Secretary could have the bill amended to remove it as an issue. Why do you think it is that she isn't...?
    Because it isn't as there is an explanatory note in the bill re the RNLI and Coastguard

    Here's the actual bill Big_G, where's the explanatory note?

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0187/210187v1.pdf
    Here

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0141/en/210141en.pdf
    Is this the relevant section?

    397 Subsection 4 amends section 25 of the 1971 Act, (criminal offence of assisting unlawful immigration)
    to include arrival in the UK as part of the definition of “immigration law”. The meaning of
    “immigration law” as provided in current section 25(2) means a law which controls non-UK
    nationals’ entitlement to enter the state, transit across the state, or be in the state. This limits the
    application of section 25 in practice. As noted regarding the offence of entry without leave, migrants
    who are intercepted at sea and are brought into an immigration control area may not have “entered”
    the UK unlawfully and so a person facilitating their journey may not be charged with assisting a
    breach of immigration law for that offence. This amendment will ensure that the offence of
    facilitation also applies to those assisting persons to arrive in the UK without a valid entry clearance.
    What that *seems* to say to me is that if you pick up some migrants at sea, and deliver them to an "immigration control area" then you "may not be charged with assisting a breach of immigration law"

    Which seems a sensible way of dealing with this - pick up some migrants in a lifesaving situation, OK. If you put them on a random beach, not OK. If you hand them over to the immigration types, OK.
    In this context does 'may not' mean definitely will not or is it dependent on the whims and foibles of who is interpreting the law?
    For that you would need a lawyer - we have several around here.....
    The term 'may not be charged' in law speak means 'can't be'.

    But that is not a proposed law. Merely a supplementary advisory document.
    Noted. BTW a court is not going to ignore supplementary advice from official sources which may (!) encourage a person to think that doing X is legal when it is considering whether that person has committed or crime, or indeed whether there is a crime to commit. It always has to be clear what a crime is for it to be one.

  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    There's nobody on this board who hates Johnson more than I do.

    But for the New European to post that he's having a bad day is pretty much the equivalent of the Morning Star saying that we should nationalise all industry and shoot the Jews.

    And for much the same reason.
    BiB - that's a highly contentious statement. I suspect the competition is pretty stiff.
    I'm content with it.
    I hate Boris more than you do!

    Fuck business Boris!
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,387

    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    BIB, this is something I've been flagging up for ages.

    UK and France at odds over migration policy yet again tonight.

    UK Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (tougher) to deter channel crossings.

    French Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (less tough) to deter channel crossings.

    Which is it?

    UK govt’s argument is that making asylum applications harder deters migrants from trying an illegal route.

    French argument is that UK system is already too tough as it requires migrants to be on UK soil before applying, incentivising crossings.

    France says the UK had 30k asylum applications per year pre-Covid.

    France processed 120k applications.

    The two countries have similar sized populations.

    France uses these stats to argue the UK isn’t taking its fair share.


    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1463593384505921547

    Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
    The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
    Well, yes and no.

    Consider the possibilities:

    1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies.
    2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.

    Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.

    The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
    Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel

    It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you

    Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection

    It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly

    For this to be workable we first need to identify a country or territory prepared to host our asylum processing centre.

    Geniune question: is there any evidence any country will do that?
    No. A government wallah was prevaricating and evading at length only today on this very question, IIRC on WatO.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,085

    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    BIB, this is something I've been flagging up for ages.

    UK and France at odds over migration policy yet again tonight.

    UK Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (tougher) to deter channel crossings.

    French Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (less tough) to deter channel crossings.

    Which is it?

    UK govt’s argument is that making asylum applications harder deters migrants from trying an illegal route.

    French argument is that UK system is already too tough as it requires migrants to be on UK soil before applying, incentivising crossings.

    France says the UK had 30k asylum applications per year pre-Covid.

    France processed 120k applications.

    The two countries have similar sized populations.

    France uses these stats to argue the UK isn’t taking its fair share.


    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1463593384505921547

    Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
    The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
    Well, yes and no.

    Consider the possibilities:

    1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies.
    2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.

    Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.

    The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
    Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel

    It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you

    Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection

    It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly

    For this to be workable we first need to identify a country or territory prepared to host our asylum processing centre.

    Geniune question: is there any evidence any country will do that?
    Yes, that's fair. I reckon the government would have announced this policy already - if they could only find a suitable destination. Australia was "lucky" that it had near-destitute island territories nearby - eg Nauru - that would do the job. In wealthy Europe, we do not have that "luck".

    So for us it is going to be much more expensive and significantly more difficult. Probably an African or South American nation, that needs the money, and will accept the modest stress.

    It will cost a fuck of a lot, but it will - in the end - save many lives, eventually save cash, and solve the problem long term. I have yet to see any sensible alternatives which aren't versions of "let them all in" or "let them all drown"

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,561
    edited November 24
    GIN1138 said:

    IanB2 said:

    BBC: Britain could face shortage of wine and spirits at Christmas, a drinks trade body has warned.

    In a letter to Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association (WSTA) said rising costs and supply chain chaos have held up deliveries.

    Imports were now taking up to five times longer than a year ago, it said. The letter was co-signed by 49 firms, including Pernod Ricard, Moët Hennessy and the Wine Society.

    It said the sector has been badly affected by the HGV driver shortage crisis, which the industry has blamed on factors including Covid and Brexit.

    LOL! Is this going to end up like the imaginary Turkey shortage?
    My local Turkey farm has only 50% of the normal seasonal turkey stock because of Labour shortage.

    Why do sceptics think so many reputable wine companies signed that letter?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,811
    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    BIB, this is something I've been flagging up for ages.

    UK and France at odds over migration policy yet again tonight.

    UK Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (tougher) to deter channel crossings.

    French Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (less tough) to deter channel crossings.

    Which is it?

    UK govt’s argument is that making asylum applications harder deters migrants from trying an illegal route.

    French argument is that UK system is already too tough as it requires migrants to be on UK soil before applying, incentivising crossings.

    France says the UK had 30k asylum applications per year pre-Covid.

    France processed 120k applications.

    The two countries have similar sized populations.

    France uses these stats to argue the UK isn’t taking its fair share.


    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1463593384505921547

    Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
    The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
    Well, yes and no.

    Consider the possibilities:

    1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies.
    2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.

    Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.

    The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
    Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel

    It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you

    Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection

    It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly


    No they aren't. Let us not exaggerate. The annual death rate for Illegal Channel crossers, after today, is about 0.1%.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 905
    edited November 24
    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    BIB, this is something I've been flagging up for ages.

    UK and France at odds over migration policy yet again tonight.

    UK Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (tougher) to deter channel crossings.

    French Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (less tough) to deter channel crossings.

    Which is it?

    UK govt’s argument is that making asylum applications harder deters migrants from trying an illegal route.

    French argument is that UK system is already too tough as it requires migrants to be on UK soil before applying, incentivising crossings.

    France says the UK had 30k asylum applications per year pre-Covid.

    France processed 120k applications.

    The two countries have similar sized populations.

    France uses these stats to argue the UK isn’t taking its fair share.


    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1463593384505921547

    Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
    The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
    Well, yes and no.

    Consider the possibilities:

    1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies.
    2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.

    Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.

    The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
    Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel

    It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you

    Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection

    It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly

    For this to be workable we first need to identify a country or territory prepared to host our asylum processing centre.

    Geniune question: is there any evidence any country will do that?
    No. A government wallah was prevaricating and evading at length only today on this very question, IIRC on WatO.

    More evidence they can't be bothered - because it's too much like hard work, too costly, or most likely both - if true.

    The Falkland Islands are on the other side of the world, remote and inescapable, and have oodles of space in which to build facilities (the size of Northern Ireland with the population of a small market town.)

    It'd cost a fortune, but it's eminently doable. The Government just doesn't want to.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,236
    Foxy said:

    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    BIB, this is something I've been flagging up for ages.

    UK and France at odds over migration policy yet again tonight.

    UK Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (tougher) to deter channel crossings.

    French Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (less tough) to deter channel crossings.

    Which is it?

    UK govt’s argument is that making asylum applications harder deters migrants from trying an illegal route.

    French argument is that UK system is already too tough as it requires migrants to be on UK soil before applying, incentivising crossings.

    France says the UK had 30k asylum applications per year pre-Covid.

    France processed 120k applications.

    The two countries have similar sized populations.

    France uses these stats to argue the UK isn’t taking its fair share.


    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1463593384505921547

    Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
    The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
    Well, yes and no.

    Consider the possibilities:

    1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies.
    2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.

    Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.

    The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
    Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel

    It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you

    Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection

    It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly


    Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
    I don't think that we need to wait for a third country, we should put them straight into assessment camps. Medical and legal services onsite etc, and speed up the whole process. No leaving unless approved. The key is quick assessment before evidence goes cold, and deportation after refusal, not years in the doldrums in Liverpool or elsewhere.

    Good luck with trying to speed up the process.

    The entire field of immigration law, from the advocates point of view, is demanding more appeals, more extensions etc.

    The howling if you put a clock on the process - "You have 6 months to prove your case, or you get a plane ticket" - would be incredible,
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,085
    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    BIB, this is something I've been flagging up for ages.

    UK and France at odds over migration policy yet again tonight.

    UK Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (tougher) to deter channel crossings.

    French Govt says we must make our asylum process ‘fairer’ (less tough) to deter channel crossings.

    Which is it?

    UK govt’s argument is that making asylum applications harder deters migrants from trying an illegal route.

    French argument is that UK system is already too tough as it requires migrants to be on UK soil before applying, incentivising crossings.

    France says the UK had 30k asylum applications per year pre-Covid.

    France processed 120k applications.

    The two countries have similar sized populations.

    France uses these stats to argue the UK isn’t taking its fair share.


    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1463593384505921547

    Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
    The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
    Well, yes and no.

    Consider the possibilities:

    1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies.
    2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.

    Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.

    The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
    Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel

    It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you

    Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection

    It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly


    No they aren't. Let us not exaggerate. The annual death rate for Illegal Channel crossers, after today, is about 0.1%.
    But this will only get worse, as they get more desperate, and the numbers increase, as those who cross the Channel succeed in entering British society illegally- which is what they are doing

    You're surely too smart to be ignorant of this. And, besides, do you have any alternative solution? I see none
Sign In or Register to comment.