Twitter trading at $45.85, indicates to me at least that the deal ain't gonna happen.
What does Elon's offer work out as per Share?
$43 per share. That's a ~40% premium on the price before he started building up his stake, but probably a small undervaluation based on recent highs (which probably won't be easy to reach again).
Isn't it $43bn @ $54 a share? That's what BBC etc. say
800,640,000 share outstanding, gives $53.7070 per share....
Twitter trading at $45.85, indicates to me at least that the deal ain't gonna happen.
What does Elon's offer work out as per Share?
$43 per share. That's a ~40% premium on the price before he started building up his stake, but probably a small undervaluation based on recent highs (which probably won't be easy to reach again).
Isn't it $43bn @ $54 a share? That's what BBC etc. say
Yes, that's what I thought, presumably he can go around and by up shares at $45 or whatever they are being traded at while his offer is on the table?
Russian drivers will be very nervous crossing bridges in Ukraine.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1514515908928192512/photo/4 🇺🇦Group of the Special Operations Forces blew up a bridge with 🇷🇺vehicles which were heading for Izyum, Kharkiv Oblast, where the Russian troops have been trying to break through the Ukrainian defenses to capture the area of Slovyansk, Donetsk Obl.
I've been wondering for a while whether Ukrainian Special Forces would/could do the same with the Crimea/Russia bridge. That would be stunning and helpful on several levels.
Agree, but it's quite a big bridge - actually with separate road and rail decks on total spacing of nearly 100m side to side in toto
Heaven knows how much explosive it would need to take it out; they might need to take a ship.
Hmmm - you're right. I suppose the USN could dock an Arleigh Burke in Romania, have all the crew go on shore-leave for a night and carelessly leave the keys in the ignition with weapons systems armed and ready to go. Ukrainian Forces then nick it and take it on a joy-ride for a bit on a GTA5 demolition spree.....
Just dreaming. Would be good though.
Perhaps a suicide trawler (or two) with a long-range Zodiac on board for escape. Or similar.
See Campbeltown, after which one of our new frigates is named IIRC.
That blew up the lockgates in St Nazaire with a 4.5 ton haul of explosives.
Which is very roughly the same as 20 Exocets or 10 Tomahawks in the same place at the same time.
I love how the Campbelltown was more effective than intended (killing 400+ German rubbernecker military) because the fuse did not work as intended. (And that the fuse designer had to be on the ship to set it).
The Rwanda scheme is expected to be very expensive.
The cost quoted so far by the government is pretty much just a set up to a set up cost.
I have yet to see a reaction from *any* politician that has not been entirely predictable. Perhaps we are all the same as well.
My only 3 notes so far are:
1 - Note Priti Patel mentioning "politically motivated lawyers". 2 - One potential complication for the Rwanda relationship that no one has mentioned is that it is a very small country slightly larger than Wales, with a population density roughly double our own. Those numbers may be difficult to square. 3 - The fake moral posturing from Les Francais about refugees has already started (again). Presumably we are due a Macron tantrum before the next Presidential voting round.
I once discovered what I thought might be the first use of Wales or Belgium as a measure of the relative size of a country.
That was a good day.
I wouldn't use it to measure like-for-not-like.
I would have gone for Yorkshire in this case, but it is too small.
Russian drivers will be very nervous crossing bridges in Ukraine.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1514515908928192512/photo/4 🇺🇦Group of the Special Operations Forces blew up a bridge with 🇷🇺vehicles which were heading for Izyum, Kharkiv Oblast, where the Russian troops have been trying to break through the Ukrainian defenses to capture the area of Slovyansk, Donetsk Obl.
I've been wondering for a while whether Ukrainian Special Forces would/could do the same with the Crimea/Russia bridge. That would be stunning and helpful on several levels.
Agree, but it's quite a big bridge - actually with separate road and rail decks on total spacing of nearly 100m side to side in toto
Heaven knows how much explosive it would need to take it out; they might need to take a ship.
Hmmm - you're right. I suppose the USN could dock an Arleigh Burke in Romania, have all the crew go on shore-leave for a night and carelessly leave the keys in the ignition with weapons systems armed and ready to go. Ukrainian Forces then nick it and take it on a joy-ride for a bit on a GTA5 demolition spree.....
Just dreaming. Would be good though.
Perhaps a suicide trawler (or two) with a long-range Zodiac on board for escape. Or similar.
See Campbeltown, after which one of our new frigates is named IIRC.
That blew up the lockgates in St Nazaire with a 4.5 ton haul of explosives.
Which is very roughly the same as 20 Exocets or 10 Tomahawks in the same place at the same time.
I love how the Campbelltown was more effective than intended (killing 400+ German rubbernecker military) because the fuse did not work as intended. (And that the fuse designer had to be on the ship to set it).
IIRC there because of the delay in the fuss going off, there was a local VIP visit going on and the Navy had invited both top Army and Air Force personnel onboard to look around.
Le Pen, an outspoken nationalist who has long ties to Russia, also confirmed that if she unseats President Emmanuel Macron in France's April 24 presidential runoff, she will pull France out of NATO's military command and dial back French support for the whole European Union.
Macron, a pro-EU centrist, is facing a harder-than-expected fight to stay in power, in part because the economic impact of the war is hitting poor households the hardest. France's European partners are worried that a possible Le Pen presidency could undermine Western unity as the U.S. and Europe seek to support Ukraine and end Russia's ruinous war on its neighbor.
Asked about military aid to Ukraine, Le Pen said she would continue defense and intelligence support.
(But) I'm more reserved about direct arms deliveries. Why? Because ... the line is thin between aid and becoming a co-belligerent, the far-right leader said, citing concerns about an escalation of this conflict that could bring a whole number of countries into a military commitment.
Earlier Wednesday, French government spokesman Gabriel Attal said France had sent 100 million euros ($109 million) worth of weapons to Ukraine in recent weeks as part of a flow of Western arms....
An interesting one is coming up - if Sweden and Finland apply to join NATO, the vote must be unanimous to accept them.
What price Orban vetoing it? Or Le Pen coming out against it?
Le Pen, an outspoken nationalist who has long ties to Russia, also confirmed that if she unseats President Emmanuel Macron in France's April 24 presidential runoff, she will pull France out of NATO's military command and dial back French support for the whole European Union.
Macron, a pro-EU centrist, is facing a harder-than-expected fight to stay in power, in part because the economic impact of the war is hitting poor households the hardest. France's European partners are worried that a possible Le Pen presidency could undermine Western unity as the U.S. and Europe seek to support Ukraine and end Russia's ruinous war on its neighbor.
Asked about military aid to Ukraine, Le Pen said she would continue defense and intelligence support.
(But) I'm more reserved about direct arms deliveries. Why? Because ... the line is thin between aid and becoming a co-belligerent, the far-right leader said, citing concerns about an escalation of this conflict that could bring a whole number of countries into a military commitment.
Earlier Wednesday, French government spokesman Gabriel Attal said France had sent 100 million euros ($109 million) worth of weapons to Ukraine in recent weeks as part of a flow of Western arms....
An interesting one is coming up - if Sweden and Finland apply to join NATO, the vote must be unanimous to accept them.
What price Orban vetoing it? Or Le Pen coming out against it?
I don't know what the Odds of Orban vetoing it would be, but is there a meconium to expel Hungary if it does?
I don't think expelling Hungary for simply vetoing expansion would be on the cards. There's no obligation to accept new members.
They would have to concoct some interpretation of Hungary's actions as a material breach of the founding principles of NATO.
Ailbhe Rea of the Staggers has a morning email on the migrant matter:
"The ethical and legal concerns are obvious. But a debate about a “cruel”, “hard-line” policy on migrants crossing the Channel is exactly the one the government, and Patel in particular, wants to have. (That it at least partially drowns out the Partygate fines is another bonus.) The number of people crossing the Channel in small boats has soared under Patel, despite her tough rhetoric.
[...]
The government is quite comfortable projecting a hard-line attitude to immigration, seeing it as a wedge issue that makes Labour uncomfortable. What it is less comfortable with is being challenged on its own terms, over whether a gratuitously expensive, cruel immigration approach will reduce the number of Channel crossings.
While many people may react viscerally to the human cost of the Rwandan offshoring policy, the most politically effective approach may be to point out its absurdity."
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Hadn't really noticed him before but again, how can be in the cabinet? It would be annoying to find someone so vacuous on a school governors board.
Looks like he has been given the interview shift that used to belong to Williamson and Jenrick, i.e. the one that even Shapps can't be bothered to defend.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
Le Pen, an outspoken nationalist who has long ties to Russia, also confirmed that if she unseats President Emmanuel Macron in France's April 24 presidential runoff, she will pull France out of NATO's military command and dial back French support for the whole European Union.
Macron, a pro-EU centrist, is facing a harder-than-expected fight to stay in power, in part because the economic impact of the war is hitting poor households the hardest. France's European partners are worried that a possible Le Pen presidency could undermine Western unity as the U.S. and Europe seek to support Ukraine and end Russia's ruinous war on its neighbor.
Asked about military aid to Ukraine, Le Pen said she would continue defense and intelligence support.
(But) I'm more reserved about direct arms deliveries. Why? Because ... the line is thin between aid and becoming a co-belligerent, the far-right leader said, citing concerns about an escalation of this conflict that could bring a whole number of countries into a military commitment.
Earlier Wednesday, French government spokesman Gabriel Attal said France had sent 100 million euros ($109 million) worth of weapons to Ukraine in recent weeks as part of a flow of Western arms....
An interesting one is coming up - if Sweden and Finland apply to join NATO, the vote must be unanimous to accept them.
What price Orban vetoing it? Or Le Pen coming out against it?
Le Pen, an outspoken nationalist who has long ties to Russia, also confirmed that if she unseats President Emmanuel Macron in France's April 24 presidential runoff, she will pull France out of NATO's military command and dial back French support for the whole European Union.
Macron, a pro-EU centrist, is facing a harder-than-expected fight to stay in power, in part because the economic impact of the war is hitting poor households the hardest. France's European partners are worried that a possible Le Pen presidency could undermine Western unity as the U.S. and Europe seek to support Ukraine and end Russia's ruinous war on its neighbor.
Asked about military aid to Ukraine, Le Pen said she would continue defense and intelligence support.
(But) I'm more reserved about direct arms deliveries. Why? Because ... the line is thin between aid and becoming a co-belligerent, the far-right leader said, citing concerns about an escalation of this conflict that could bring a whole number of countries into a military commitment.
Earlier Wednesday, French government spokesman Gabriel Attal said France had sent 100 million euros ($109 million) worth of weapons to Ukraine in recent weeks as part of a flow of Western arms....
An interesting one is coming up - if Sweden and Finland apply to join NATO, the vote must be unanimous to accept them.
What price Orban vetoing it? Or Le Pen coming out against it?
I don't know what the Odds of Orban vetoing it would be, but is there a meconium to expel Hungary if it does?
I don't think expelling Hungary for simply vetoing expansion would be on the cards. There's no obligation to accept new members.
The case for expelling Hungary from the EU is they are turning away from the core values underpinning the project.
We were talking of NATO - which explicitly doesn't interact with domestic politics of the countries that are part of it.
Ah, thought you were talking about the EU. Hungary not a great fit there, imo, with the direction they're going. Perhaps they could be told to either shape up or Take Back Control.
I’ve spent the last couple of hours having a very pleasant, and slow, stroll around the centre of Perpignan. It’s a fascinating and beautiful place. I haven’t been using the map on my phone at all, though I’d be utterly lost now without it. I’ve just been wandering the streets, passing ancient churches and palaces, and down countless quaint cobbled alleyways packed with crowded bars and restaurants.
I’ve sat down now for my first beer of the day - shockingly late, I know! But I did have a glass or two of red last night after midnight, so I think I’ve technically kept up my drinking every morning on this holiday. I’m sitting in the sun in front of the cathedral and there’s some lovely opera music coming from somewhere nearby. The cathedral doesn’t look too impressive from here, but it’s gorgeous inside. I couldn’t get any decent photos in there as it’s rather dark and no flash photography allowed..
I think I’m going to have another beer and then continue with my meandering about town. Salutations!
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
It depends where at sea it happens. A state's military forces can pretty much do what they like inside the 24 mile contiguous zone if they suspect a breach of immigration regulations or criminal activity.
I have no idea on the legality or otherwise of forcibly transporting somebody to a third country. I imagine quite a few will have to be done Extraordinary Rendition style; pumped full of sedatives in nappies.
Snap poll, details to filter through, yada yada, but...
The Government has proposed a deal where some people who have entered Britain and applied for asylum will be flown to Rwanda, in Africa, for their asylum applications to be processed. Do you support or oppose this proposal?
Le Pen, an outspoken nationalist who has long ties to Russia, also confirmed that if she unseats President Emmanuel Macron in France's April 24 presidential runoff, she will pull France out of NATO's military command and dial back French support for the whole European Union.
Macron, a pro-EU centrist, is facing a harder-than-expected fight to stay in power, in part because the economic impact of the war is hitting poor households the hardest. France's European partners are worried that a possible Le Pen presidency could undermine Western unity as the U.S. and Europe seek to support Ukraine and end Russia's ruinous war on its neighbor.
Asked about military aid to Ukraine, Le Pen said she would continue defense and intelligence support.
(But) I'm more reserved about direct arms deliveries. Why? Because ... the line is thin between aid and becoming a co-belligerent, the far-right leader said, citing concerns about an escalation of this conflict that could bring a whole number of countries into a military commitment.
Earlier Wednesday, French government spokesman Gabriel Attal said France had sent 100 million euros ($109 million) worth of weapons to Ukraine in recent weeks as part of a flow of Western arms....
An interesting one is coming up - if Sweden and Finland apply to join NATO, the vote must be unanimous to accept them.
What price Orban vetoing it? Or Le Pen coming out against it?
Le Pen, an outspoken nationalist who has long ties to Russia, also confirmed that if she unseats President Emmanuel Macron in France's April 24 presidential runoff, she will pull France out of NATO's military command and dial back French support for the whole European Union.
Macron, a pro-EU centrist, is facing a harder-than-expected fight to stay in power, in part because the economic impact of the war is hitting poor households the hardest. France's European partners are worried that a possible Le Pen presidency could undermine Western unity as the U.S. and Europe seek to support Ukraine and end Russia's ruinous war on its neighbor.
Asked about military aid to Ukraine, Le Pen said she would continue defense and intelligence support.
(But) I'm more reserved about direct arms deliveries. Why? Because ... the line is thin between aid and becoming a co-belligerent, the far-right leader said, citing concerns about an escalation of this conflict that could bring a whole number of countries into a military commitment.
Earlier Wednesday, French government spokesman Gabriel Attal said France had sent 100 million euros ($109 million) worth of weapons to Ukraine in recent weeks as part of a flow of Western arms....
An interesting one is coming up - if Sweden and Finland apply to join NATO, the vote must be unanimous to accept them.
What price Orban vetoing it? Or Le Pen coming out against it?
I don't know what the Odds of Orban vetoing it would be, but is there a meconium to expel Hungary if it does?
I don't think expelling Hungary for simply vetoing expansion would be on the cards. There's no obligation to accept new members.
The case for expelling Hungary from the EU is they are turning away from the core values underpinning the project.
We were talking of NATO - which explicitly doesn't interact with domestic politics of the countries that are part of it.
Ah, thought you were talking about the EU. Hungary not a great fit there, imo, with the direction they're going. Perhaps they could be told to either shape up or Take Back Control.
er.... " if Sweden and Finland apply to join NATO, the vote must be unanimous to accept them. What price Orban vetoing it? Or Le Pen coming out against it?"
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
It depends where at sea it happens. A state's military forces can pretty much do what they like inside the 24 mile contiguous zone if they suspect a breach of immigration regulations or criminal activity.
I have no idea on the legality or otherwise of forcibly transporting somebody to a third country. I imagine quite a few will have to be done Extraordinary Rendition style; pumped full of sedatives in nappies.
Ah, thanks. I did wonder on reflection if the RN would confine its activities to observing and monitoring. But we have something called the Maritime and Coastguard Agency already to do exactly that job. Perfectly suitable for that. Or it used to be before the cuts. Plus it's not run by the Home Office. It's run by the Department for Transpo .... the folk whose idea of electrifying a railweay is to leave the heavy diesel engine in the train cos they forgot to extend the wires all the way along. Ah. Oh dear.
There aren't that many surplus matelots anyway.
I'm left wondering if this is a scheme to nobble the Minister for Defence when he (as he will) fails to stop the masses. In terms of replacing Mr Johnson. But that would be far too cynical a thought.
Le Pen, an outspoken nationalist who has long ties to Russia, also confirmed that if she unseats President Emmanuel Macron in France's April 24 presidential runoff, she will pull France out of NATO's military command and dial back French support for the whole European Union.
Macron, a pro-EU centrist, is facing a harder-than-expected fight to stay in power, in part because the economic impact of the war is hitting poor households the hardest. France's European partners are worried that a possible Le Pen presidency could undermine Western unity as the U.S. and Europe seek to support Ukraine and end Russia's ruinous war on its neighbor.
Asked about military aid to Ukraine, Le Pen said she would continue defense and intelligence support.
(But) I'm more reserved about direct arms deliveries. Why? Because ... the line is thin between aid and becoming a co-belligerent, the far-right leader said, citing concerns about an escalation of this conflict that could bring a whole number of countries into a military commitment.
Earlier Wednesday, French government spokesman Gabriel Attal said France had sent 100 million euros ($109 million) worth of weapons to Ukraine in recent weeks as part of a flow of Western arms....
An interesting one is coming up - if Sweden and Finland apply to join NATO, the vote must be unanimous to accept them.
What price Orban vetoing it? Or Le Pen coming out against it?
Le Pen, an outspoken nationalist who has long ties to Russia, also confirmed that if she unseats President Emmanuel Macron in France's April 24 presidential runoff, she will pull France out of NATO's military command and dial back French support for the whole European Union.
Macron, a pro-EU centrist, is facing a harder-than-expected fight to stay in power, in part because the economic impact of the war is hitting poor households the hardest. France's European partners are worried that a possible Le Pen presidency could undermine Western unity as the U.S. and Europe seek to support Ukraine and end Russia's ruinous war on its neighbor.
Asked about military aid to Ukraine, Le Pen said she would continue defense and intelligence support.
(But) I'm more reserved about direct arms deliveries. Why? Because ... the line is thin between aid and becoming a co-belligerent, the far-right leader said, citing concerns about an escalation of this conflict that could bring a whole number of countries into a military commitment.
Earlier Wednesday, French government spokesman Gabriel Attal said France had sent 100 million euros ($109 million) worth of weapons to Ukraine in recent weeks as part of a flow of Western arms....
An interesting one is coming up - if Sweden and Finland apply to join NATO, the vote must be unanimous to accept them.
What price Orban vetoing it? Or Le Pen coming out against it?
I don't know what the Odds of Orban vetoing it would be, but is there a meconium to expel Hungary if it does?
I don't think expelling Hungary for simply vetoing expansion would be on the cards. There's no obligation to accept new members.
The case for expelling Hungary from the EU is they are turning away from the core values underpinning the project.
We were talking of NATO - which explicitly doesn't interact with domestic politics of the countries that are part of it.
Ah, thought you were talking about the EU. Hungary not a great fit there, imo, with the direction they're going. Perhaps they could be told to either shape up or Take Back Control.
er.... " if Sweden and Finland apply to join NATO, the vote must be unanimous to accept them. What price Orban vetoing it? Or Le Pen coming out against it?"
Yes, Malmesbury, I know. I see that now. I chipped in a comment without checking on the prior exchange. It's the new me - less careful and diligent, not so relentlessly 'on it', just generally more relaxed and slack.
An article about Senator Feinstein's apparently increasing mental problems which is, unusually, not a political hit job, but rather reads as fair and careful reporting.
Le Pen, an outspoken nationalist who has long ties to Russia, also confirmed that if she unseats President Emmanuel Macron in France's April 24 presidential runoff, she will pull France out of NATO's military command and dial back French support for the whole European Union.
Macron, a pro-EU centrist, is facing a harder-than-expected fight to stay in power, in part because the economic impact of the war is hitting poor households the hardest. France's European partners are worried that a possible Le Pen presidency could undermine Western unity as the U.S. and Europe seek to support Ukraine and end Russia's ruinous war on its neighbor.
Asked about military aid to Ukraine, Le Pen said she would continue defense and intelligence support.
(But) I'm more reserved about direct arms deliveries. Why? Because ... the line is thin between aid and becoming a co-belligerent, the far-right leader said, citing concerns about an escalation of this conflict that could bring a whole number of countries into a military commitment.
Earlier Wednesday, French government spokesman Gabriel Attal said France had sent 100 million euros ($109 million) worth of weapons to Ukraine in recent weeks as part of a flow of Western arms....
An interesting one is coming up - if Sweden and Finland apply to join NATO, the vote must be unanimous to accept them.
What price Orban vetoing it? Or Le Pen coming out against it?
Le Pen, an outspoken nationalist who has long ties to Russia, also confirmed that if she unseats President Emmanuel Macron in France's April 24 presidential runoff, she will pull France out of NATO's military command and dial back French support for the whole European Union.
Macron, a pro-EU centrist, is facing a harder-than-expected fight to stay in power, in part because the economic impact of the war is hitting poor households the hardest. France's European partners are worried that a possible Le Pen presidency could undermine Western unity as the U.S. and Europe seek to support Ukraine and end Russia's ruinous war on its neighbor.
Asked about military aid to Ukraine, Le Pen said she would continue defense and intelligence support.
(But) I'm more reserved about direct arms deliveries. Why? Because ... the line is thin between aid and becoming a co-belligerent, the far-right leader said, citing concerns about an escalation of this conflict that could bring a whole number of countries into a military commitment.
Earlier Wednesday, French government spokesman Gabriel Attal said France had sent 100 million euros ($109 million) worth of weapons to Ukraine in recent weeks as part of a flow of Western arms....
An interesting one is coming up - if Sweden and Finland apply to join NATO, the vote must be unanimous to accept them.
What price Orban vetoing it? Or Le Pen coming out against it?
I don't know what the Odds of Orban vetoing it would be, but is there a meconium to expel Hungary if it does?
I don't think expelling Hungary for simply vetoing expansion would be on the cards. There's no obligation to accept new members.
They would have to concoct some interpretation of Hungary's actions as a material breach of the founding principles of NATO.
Or dissolve it and immediately reconstitute it without them.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
It depends where at sea it happens. A state's military forces can pretty much do what they like inside the 24 mile contiguous zone if they suspect a breach of immigration regulations or criminal activity.
I have no idea on the legality or otherwise of forcibly transporting somebody to a third country. I imagine quite a few will have to be done Extraordinary Rendition style; pumped full of sedatives in nappies.
Something in common with Grant Shapps doing the morning news shows then.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
It depends where at sea it happens. A state's military forces can pretty much do what they like inside the 24 mile contiguous zone if they suspect a breach of immigration regulations or criminal activity.
I have no idea on the legality or otherwise of forcibly transporting somebody to a third country. I imagine quite a few will have to be done Extraordinary Rendition style; pumped full of sedatives in nappies.
Ah, thanks. I did wonder on reflection if the RN would confine its activities to observing and monitoring. But we have something called the Maritime and Coastguard Agency already to do exactly that job. Perfectly suitable for that. Or it used to be before the cuts. Plus it's not run by the Home Office. It's run by the Department for Transpo .... the folk whose idea of electrifying a railweay is to leave the heavy diesel engine in the train cos they forgot to extend the wires all the way along. Ah. Oh dear.
There aren't that many surplus matelots anyway.
I'm left wondering if this is a scheme to nobble the Minister for Defence when he (as he will) fails to stop the masses. In terms of replacing Mr Johnson. But that would be far too cynical a thought.
The fundamentals of the Channel remain the same whether it's the RN, Border Force, Maritime & Coastguard or the Hythe Brownies doing the interceptions. You can't do anything with a SIEV until it's in UK waters but once it is in UK waters you can't do anything other than bring its occupants to the UK.
This RN announcement changes absolutely nothing but Johnson keeps reannouncing it because befuddled boomers who vote tory like that sort of thing and keep forgetting that they heard it before 12 months earlier.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
It depends where at sea it happens. A state's military forces can pretty much do what they like inside the 24 mile contiguous zone if they suspect a breach of immigration regulations or criminal activity.
I have no idea on the legality or otherwise of forcibly transporting somebody to a third country. I imagine quite a few will have to be done Extraordinary Rendition style; pumped full of sedatives in nappies.
Something in common with Grant Shapps doing the morning news shows then.
A long time since I've dealt with refugee and migrant issues, but my guess is that the legal options are: 1. migrants = return to the immediate proximate country from which they've come directly, or their home country. 2. Displaced persons and asylum seekers= return to either the first safe haven they found outside their home country, or the country they've immediately come from (provided that is safe).
Bit depressed. I was hoping to walk out of hospital today unaided, but I have simply moved from a zimmer frame to crutches. Apparently my bones have mended well and the screws look bloody long on the X rays. However I am only allowed to partially weight bare, so crutches for 4 more weeks and then a boot for another 2 weeks. Damn it.
Still no more blood thinner injections in my stomach which is a relief. It is black and blue.
Bit depressed. I was hoping to walk out of hospital today unaided, but I have simply moved from a zimmer frame to crutches. Apparently my bones have mended well and the screws look bloody long on the X rays. However I am only allowed to partially weight bare, so crutches for 4 more weeks and then a boot for another 2 weeks. Damn it.
Sorry to hear that. If it provides some encouragement, my daughter went through 6 major hip surgeries and was on crutches for years (literally). Last week we met up with her and her new husband for dinner. She proudly announced she had done a 10 mile charity run that day.
Bit depressed. I was hoping to walk out of hospital today unaided, but I have simply moved from a zimmer frame to crutches. Apparently my bones have mended well and the screws look bloody long on the X rays. However I am only allowed to partially weight bare, so crutches for 4 more weeks and then a boot for another 2 weeks. Damn it.
Still no more blood thinner injections in my stomach which is a relief. It is black and blue.
Keep the faith, you’ll get there. I’ve had two knee surgeries in ten years and at the start it feels like it will be an eternity, but the time passes. Good luck with it.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
It depends where at sea it happens. A state's military forces can pretty much do what they like inside the 24 mile contiguous zone if they suspect a breach of immigration regulations or criminal activity.
I have no idea on the legality or otherwise of forcibly transporting somebody to a third country. I imagine quite a few will have to be done Extraordinary Rendition style; pumped full of sedatives in nappies.
Something in common with Grant Shapps doing the morning news shows then.
A long time since I've dealt with refugee and migrant issues, but my guess is that the legal options are: 1. migrants = return to the immediate proximate country from which they've come directly, or their home country. 2. Displaced persons and asylum seekers= return to either the first safe haven they found outside their home country, or the country they've immediately come from (provided that is safe).
I have always thought this is the fairest approach. If someone is genuinely fleeing persecution they should apply in the first safe country they enter. If they them want to go to UK they should then apply as a migrant. Places like Italy and France unlikely to like it though.
“ The Prime Minister and Chancellor have both apologised after being awarded Fixed Penalty Notices and I understand that both have now paid. I completely understand the frustrations and anger amongst people in Solihull right now. Solihull followed the rules diligently throughout the pandemic and it is important that those in public office set the right example.
That said, on the other side of the continent, Putin and his barbaric regime have illegally invaded Ukraine. Thousands of innocent Ukrainians, including children, have been murdered. And, the UK Government is now investigating whether Putin’s regime has used chemical weapons against innocent civilians in Mariupol.
The UK is leading the west’s efforts to support Ukraine, in particular, President Zelensky has openly praised the Prime Minister for his efforts in supporting Ukraine during this fractious period for Europe. Given the crucial point in Europe’s history right now, it is not the right time to change the leadership of the country. It’s time to move on.”
Pathetic Statement. His logic is absurd.
It is. Johnson is clinging to power because he wants to keep on being PM. That's all there is to it. It's got nothing to do with needing to 'deliver' things domestically (lols) or (even bigger lols) with saving the world from Putin.
This is why it's a no-brainer to remove him when we get the chance at the GE. It has big potential upside and is completely risk free. He brings no integrity, grip, intellect or imagination to the job, therefore nothing of value can possibly be lost by him leaving it.
Comedic value? It has to be worth something doesn't it?
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
Bit depressed. I was hoping to walk out of hospital today unaided, but I have simply moved from a zimmer frame to crutches. Apparently my bones have mended well and the screws look bloody long on the X rays. However I am only allowed to partially weight bare, so crutches for 4 more weeks and then a boot for another 2 weeks. Damn it.
Still no more blood thinner injections in my stomach which is a relief. It is black and blue.
“ The Prime Minister and Chancellor have both apologised after being awarded Fixed Penalty Notices and I understand that both have now paid. I completely understand the frustrations and anger amongst people in Solihull right now. Solihull followed the rules diligently throughout the pandemic and it is important that those in public office set the right example.
That said, on the other side of the continent, Putin and his barbaric regime have illegally invaded Ukraine. Thousands of innocent Ukrainians, including children, have been murdered. And, the UK Government is now investigating whether Putin’s regime has used chemical weapons against innocent civilians in Mariupol.
The UK is leading the west’s efforts to support Ukraine, in particular, President Zelensky has openly praised the Prime Minister for his efforts in supporting Ukraine during this fractious period for Europe. Given the crucial point in Europe’s history right now, it is not the right time to change the leadership of the country. It’s time to move on.”
Pathetic Statement. His logic is absurd.
It is. Johnson is clinging to power because he wants to keep on being PM. That's all there is to it. It's got nothing to do with needing to 'deliver' things domestically (lols) or (even bigger lols) with saving the world from Putin.
This is why it's a no-brainer to remove him when we get the chance at the GE. It has big potential upside and is completely risk free. He brings no integrity, grip, intellect or imagination to the job, therefore nothing of value can possibly be lost by him leaving it.
Comedic value? It has to be worth something doesn't it?
Yes but it's one of those comedies of cringe, the sort of thing Ricky Gervais writes.
Not a properly enjoyable comedy, like The Goodies, or 'Allo 'Allo.
Bit depressed. I was hoping to walk out of hospital today unaided, but I have simply moved from a zimmer frame to crutches. Apparently my bones have mended well and the screws look bloody long on the X rays. However I am only allowed to partially weight bare, so crutches for 4 more weeks and then a boot for another 2 weeks. Damn it.
Still no more blood thinner injections in my stomach which is a relief. It is black and blue.
Good to hear you are on the path to recovery. I will repeat my advice (to anyone in such situations): get yourself down to the pool as soon as possible and as long as the physios sign it off and exercise in there. Walk, run, use flippers (ask permission) to increase resistance and also swim (!). It is excellent for recovery.
Edit: and don't hurry it I appreciate your frustration. Take your time and the outcome will be far better.
Bit depressed. I was hoping to walk out of hospital today unaided, but I have simply moved from a zimmer frame to crutches. Apparently my bones have mended well and the screws look bloody long on the X rays. However I am only allowed to partially weight bare, so crutches for 4 more weeks and then a boot for another 2 weeks. Damn it.
Still no more blood thinner injections in my stomach which is a relief. It is black and blue.
This must be very frustrating for you but it does seem that things are progressing in the right direction.
Hopefully in six weeks you will be crutches and boot free, in the meantime take care. You will get there!
Bit depressed. I was hoping to walk out of hospital today unaided, but I have simply moved from a zimmer frame to crutches. Apparently my bones have mended well and the screws look bloody long on the X rays. However I am only allowed to partially weight bare, so crutches for 4 more weeks and then a boot for another 2 weeks. Damn it.
Still no more blood thinner injections in my stomach which is a relief. It is black and blue.
Some good news. My best wishes to you for a speedy recovery.
Bit depressed. I was hoping to walk out of hospital today unaided, but I have simply moved from a zimmer frame to crutches. Apparently my bones have mended well and the screws look bloody long on the X rays. However I am only allowed to partially weight bare, so crutches for 4 more weeks and then a boot for another 2 weeks. Damn it.
Still no more blood thinner injections in my stomach which is a relief. It is black and blue.
Sad its not better news kjh, but at lest its getting a bit better.
Bit depressed. I was hoping to walk out of hospital today unaided, but I have simply moved from a zimmer frame to crutches. Apparently my bones have mended well and the screws look bloody long on the X rays. However I am only allowed to partially weight bare, so crutches for 4 more weeks and then a boot for another 2 weeks. Damn it.
Still no more blood thinner injections in my stomach which is a relief. It is black and blue.
I'd take that as a result, friend.
Cheers @MarqueeMark I had already cancelled any idea of a French cycle trip in May or summer skiing in Kaprun. I was hoping we might do a May trip to America, which got cancelled because of Covid a couple of years ago, instead, but that is clearly off. We haven't done any long distance travelling so we had big plans once we were both retired.
So instead it looks like Devon. I have already noted your recommendation of 27 in Kingsbridge and I have loved Salcombe in previous visits (although decades ago). Recommendations for places to visit, stay and eat please?
Apparently this is Chancellor Scholtz at an anti-NATO rally in 1982. I’m sure he loves NATO now though..
Aren't his politics as a young man well known? He was quite far left and critical of NATO. Views evolve. A bit younger than that, I was a Telegraph reader and arch-Eurosceptic. At 23 I thought Chris Huhne was the future of the Lib Dems...
In 1982, I had few concerns except who was going to change my nappy and where my next milk feed was coming from.
Twitter trading at $45.85, indicates to me at least that the deal ain't gonna happen.
What does Elon's offer work out as per Share?
$43 per share. That's a ~40% premium on the price before he started building up his stake, but probably a small undervaluation based on recent highs (which probably won't be easy to reach again).
Isn't it $43bn @ $54 a share? That's what BBC etc. say
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
'Just found out that 61.3% of Rwanda's house of commons is female, almost entirely POC women at that.
Real shame to see such a concerted effort by the left to denigrate such a progressive country.'
Really. Here’s another statement from the UK government on Rwanda, from January 2021: “We remain concerned…by continued restrictions to civil and political rights and media freedoms”-Before going on to urge investigations into allegations of killings, deaths in custody and torture. https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1514380024408944645
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
As the only real lawyer in the Justice Department has resigned, I guess they can just make it up as they go along.
'Just found out that 61.3% of Rwanda's house of commons is female, almost entirely POC women at that.
Real shame to see such a concerted effort by the left to denigrate such a progressive country.'
Really. Here’s another statement from the UK government on Rwanda, from January 2021: “We remain concerned…by continued restrictions to civil and political rights and media freedoms”-Before going on to urge investigations into allegations of killings, deaths in custody and torture. https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1514380024408944645
I'm missing your condemnation of the lefties in government who published that statement, @Jamesgraves . Such concerted efforts surely need discouraging ?
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I must wonder what else Boris Johnson must do to embarrass this country further. But then, I am sure there are new depths.
If the polls do not improve, at some point the government is going to propose the reintroduction of the death penalty.
SFAICS to win an election from here (assuming a Tory coalition is out) Tories need at least some votes from traditional centrists who are broadly Tory in the pragmatic sense, and liberal in outlook. Without that they need an awful lot of populist votes that traditionally go to Labour.
The vote in favour of Daily Mail measures is large but finite, and it puts off lots of people too.
The Tories can win from the populist right if, and only if, Labour goes out of its way to lose the election, something they can often be relied on to do.
Watching how SKS disciplines the left is going to be a telling indicator of the future.
SKS also has a a difficult decision as to whether to actually have some real policies which are distinct, or, as now, to have no significant alternative to present except that the Tories are bad at governing and corrupted by power.
“ The Prime Minister and Chancellor have both apologised after being awarded Fixed Penalty Notices and I understand that both have now paid. I completely understand the frustrations and anger amongst people in Solihull right now. Solihull followed the rules diligently throughout the pandemic and it is important that those in public office set the right example.
That said, on the other side of the continent, Putin and his barbaric regime have illegally invaded Ukraine. Thousands of innocent Ukrainians, including children, have been murdered. And, the UK Government is now investigating whether Putin’s regime has used chemical weapons against innocent civilians in Mariupol.
The UK is leading the west’s efforts to support Ukraine, in particular, President Zelensky has openly praised the Prime Minister for his efforts in supporting Ukraine during this fractious period for Europe. Given the crucial point in Europe’s history right now, it is not the right time to change the leadership of the country. It’s time to move on.”
Pathetic Statement. His logic is absurd.
It is. Johnson is clinging to power because he wants to keep on being PM. That's all there is to it. It's got nothing to do with needing to 'deliver' things domestically (lols) or (even bigger lols) with saving the world from Putin.
This is why it's a no-brainer to remove him when we get the chance at the GE. It has big potential upside and is completely risk free. He brings no integrity, grip, intellect or imagination to the job, therefore nothing of value can possibly be lost by him leaving it.
Comedic value? It has to be worth something doesn't it?
I know. But I think Johnson-as-PM has cost me my sense of humour. It's another thing I hold against him. The black farce just keeps on coming and I can't surf it anymore. Eg this Rwanda 'initiative' begs a thousand jokes yet I find myself unable to make any of them.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
Not direct from where they are picked up at sea, no. So what's the point of involving the Navy, which has other things to do, as opposed to Border Force and the MCA?
Apparently this is Chancellor Scholtz at an anti-NATO rally in 1982. I’m sure he loves NATO now though..
Aren't his politics as a young man well known? He was quite far left and critical of NATO. Views evolve. A bit younger than that, I was a Telegraph reader and arch-Eurosceptic. At 23 I thought Chris Huhne was the future of the Lib Dems...
In 1982, I had few concerns except who was going to change my nappy and where my next milk feed was coming from.
Well sure.. many people’s views evolve. But it must be rather dispiriting for the Ukrainians to have had Frau “Ostpolitik” Merkel replaced by a man who so clearly had Soviet sympathy, even in his youth.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
It depends where at sea it happens. A state's military forces can pretty much do what they like inside the 24 mile contiguous zone if they suspect a breach of immigration regulations or criminal activity.
I have no idea on the legality or otherwise of forcibly transporting somebody to a third country. I imagine quite a few will have to be done Extraordinary Rendition style; pumped full of sedatives in nappies.
Something in common with Grant Shapps doing the morning news shows then.
A long time since I've dealt with refugee and migrant issues, but my guess is that the legal options are: 1. migrants = return to the immediate proximate country from which they've come directly, or their home country. 2. Displaced persons and asylum seekers= return to either the first safe haven they found outside their home country, or the country they've immediately come from (provided that is safe).
I have always thought this is the fairest approach. If someone is genuinely fleeing persecution they should apply in the first safe country they enter. If they them want to go to UK they should then apply as a migrant. Places like Italy and France unlikely to like it though.
As I have said many times before Cameron, for all his other faults, had exactly the right idea on this. Be proactive. Go out into the camps or to the countries bordering failing states and pick out the people who are clearly in need and bring them directly into the first world countries. You can argue about the scale of the operation in terms of how many you choose to help but the basic idea of collecting the needy as soon as they get out of immediate danger and bringing them to the UK or elsewhere willing to have refugees seems a really good basic idea to me.
“ The Prime Minister and Chancellor have both apologised after being awarded Fixed Penalty Notices and I understand that both have now paid. I completely understand the frustrations and anger amongst people in Solihull right now. Solihull followed the rules diligently throughout the pandemic and it is important that those in public office set the right example.
That said, on the other side of the continent, Putin and his barbaric regime have illegally invaded Ukraine. Thousands of innocent Ukrainians, including children, have been murdered. And, the UK Government is now investigating whether Putin’s regime has used chemical weapons against innocent civilians in Mariupol.
The UK is leading the west’s efforts to support Ukraine, in particular, President Zelensky has openly praised the Prime Minister for his efforts in supporting Ukraine during this fractious period for Europe. Given the crucial point in Europe’s history right now, it is not the right time to change the leadership of the country. It’s time to move on.”
Pathetic Statement. His logic is absurd.
It is. Johnson is clinging to power because he wants to keep on being PM. That's all there is to it. It's got nothing to do with needing to 'deliver' things domestically (lols) or (even bigger lols) with saving the world from Putin.
This is why it's a no-brainer to remove him when we get the chance at the GE. It has big potential upside and is completely risk free. He brings no integrity, grip, intellect or imagination to the job, therefore nothing of value can possibly be lost by him leaving it.
Comedic value? It has to be worth something doesn't it?
I know. But I think Johnson-as-PM has cost me my sense of humour. It's another thing I hold against him. The black farce just keeps on coming and I can't surf it anymore. Eg this Rwanda 'initiative' begs a thousand jokes yet I find myself unable to make any of them.
Are you allowed to refer to a farce as black now, I thought that was now verboten labelling things that are bad as black.
Hadn't really noticed him before but again, how can be in the cabinet? It would be annoying to find someone so vacuous on a school governors board.
Looks like he has been given the interview shift that used to belong to Williamson and Jenrick, i.e. the one that even Shapps can't be bothered to defend.
Used to be prominent in the Countryside Alliance. There are some curious incidents described in
“ The Prime Minister and Chancellor have both apologised after being awarded Fixed Penalty Notices and I understand that both have now paid. I completely understand the frustrations and anger amongst people in Solihull right now. Solihull followed the rules diligently throughout the pandemic and it is important that those in public office set the right example.
That said, on the other side of the continent, Putin and his barbaric regime have illegally invaded Ukraine. Thousands of innocent Ukrainians, including children, have been murdered. And, the UK Government is now investigating whether Putin’s regime has used chemical weapons against innocent civilians in Mariupol.
The UK is leading the west’s efforts to support Ukraine, in particular, President Zelensky has openly praised the Prime Minister for his efforts in supporting Ukraine during this fractious period for Europe. Given the crucial point in Europe’s history right now, it is not the right time to change the leadership of the country. It’s time to move on.”
Pathetic Statement. His logic is absurd.
It is. Johnson is clinging to power because he wants to keep on being PM. That's all there is to it. It's got nothing to do with needing to 'deliver' things domestically (lols) or (even bigger lols) with saving the world from Putin.
This is why it's a no-brainer to remove him when we get the chance at the GE. It has big potential upside and is completely risk free. He brings no integrity, grip, intellect or imagination to the job, therefore nothing of value can possibly be lost by him leaving it.
Comedic value? It has to be worth something doesn't it?
I know. But I think Johnson-as-PM has cost me my sense of humour. It's another thing I hold against him. The black farce just keeps on coming and I can't surf it anymore. Eg this Rwanda 'initiative' begs a thousand jokes yet I find myself unable to make any of them.
Are you allowed to refer to a farce as black now, I thought that was now verboten labelling things that are bad as black.
I think blackmail is still allowed in polite circles . Which is fine given none of these terms relate at all to race only in the minds of weird people who obsess about race all the time
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
It's a truism that Parliament can legislate any daft shit it chooses; I don't think anyone is arguing about that.
But daft shit has consequences outside of those immediately targeted by any given piece of legislation. And it doesn't become not daft shit just because it's then enacted law.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
It's a truism that Parliament can legislate any daft shit it chooses; I don't think anyone is arguing about that.
But daft shit has consequences outside of those immediately targeted by any given piece of legislation. And it doesn't become not daft shit just because it's then enacted law.
Wasn't saying it did and 90% of all legislation is daft shit whichever country you choose to look at.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
“ The Prime Minister and Chancellor have both apologised after being awarded Fixed Penalty Notices and I understand that both have now paid. I completely understand the frustrations and anger amongst people in Solihull right now. Solihull followed the rules diligently throughout the pandemic and it is important that those in public office set the right example.
That said, on the other side of the continent, Putin and his barbaric regime have illegally invaded Ukraine. Thousands of innocent Ukrainians, including children, have been murdered. And, the UK Government is now investigating whether Putin’s regime has used chemical weapons against innocent civilians in Mariupol.
The UK is leading the west’s efforts to support Ukraine, in particular, President Zelensky has openly praised the Prime Minister for his efforts in supporting Ukraine during this fractious period for Europe. Given the crucial point in Europe’s history right now, it is not the right time to change the leadership of the country. It’s time to move on.”
Pathetic Statement. His logic is absurd.
It is. Johnson is clinging to power because he wants to keep on being PM. That's all there is to it. It's got nothing to do with needing to 'deliver' things domestically (lols) or (even bigger lols) with saving the world from Putin.
This is why it's a no-brainer to remove him when we get the chance at the GE. It has big potential upside and is completely risk free. He brings no integrity, grip, intellect or imagination to the job, therefore nothing of value can possibly be lost by him leaving it.
Comedic value? It has to be worth something doesn't it?
I know. But I think Johnson-as-PM has cost me my sense of humour. It's another thing I hold against him. The black farce just keeps on coming and I can't surf it anymore. Eg this Rwanda 'initiative' begs a thousand jokes yet I find myself unable to make any of them.
Are you allowed to refer to a farce as black now, I thought that was now verboten labelling things that are bad as black.
You know me - I float free of all that. Courage is required but I have it.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
If you are arrested on a terrorist offence for example I believe you can currently be held incommunicado without a lawyer for an extended period and even when they finally grant you access to a lawyer he is not allowed to see the evidence against you.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
If you are arrested on a terrorist offence for example I believe you can currently be held incommunicado without a lawyer for an extended period and even when they finally grant you access to a lawyer he is not allowed to see the evidence against you.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
Of course, this policy is also pretty racist. The implication is that Rwanda is some hellhole that asylum seekers will do anything to avoid.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
If you are arrested on a terrorist offence for example I believe you can currently be held incommunicado without a lawyer for an extended period and even when they finally grant you access to a lawyer he is not allowed to see the evidence against you.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
Of course, this policy is also pretty racist. The implication is that Rwanda is some hellhole that asylum seekers will do anything to avoid.
I think it is more because Rwanda is probably not much better than the war torn country they fled in terms of standard of living than it is because africans live there. I believe albania was also considered which is majority caucasian
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
In other words, kidnapping folk and preventing them from access to lawyers for a non-trivial period. I thought that sort of thing went out in 1215, at least in England.
Did you look at extraordinary rendition or any of the anti terror laws recently?
Not recently, no; but I wasn't aware that UKG had abrogated the rule of law de jure.
If you are arrested on a terrorist offence for example I believe you can currently be held incommunicado without a lawyer for an extended period and even when they finally grant you access to a lawyer he is not allowed to see the evidence against you.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
Of course, this policy is also pretty racist. The implication is that Rwanda is some hellhole that asylum seekers will do anything to avoid.
Yes, part of the charmlessness of this pantomime will be the sight of the government ignoring the racist element of the policy, and its opponents ignoring the racist aspect of saying that Rwanda is unsuitable.
The more I hear about this Rwanda plan, the more worrying it becomes. If China or Russia were to implement this policy, I doubt we would welcome it.
I',m having difficulty with all the talk of RN involvement, because:
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
That depends if they want to claim asylum. If they want to claim asylum, they have to go to the asylum processing centre, in Rwanda. If they don't have a valid asylum claim, they just want to get to the UK (which is a perfectly valid desire; I have no issue with people wanting a better life), the UK has a right to choose to admit them or otherwise.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Not the point at issue here. The point is that arresting people on the sea for doing nothing (yet) is not on legally. It's called piracy or kidnapping etcc.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
As soon as they cross into british waters without a valid visa they are by de facto an illegal immigrant. Therefore your claim of doing nothing is spurious
I don't think that's technically true: one can transit British waters without a visa.
I would guess though there is an intent.....person in yacht passing through british waters on way to somewhere else....yes transit....forty refugees in a dinghy made for 5.....thats not transiting its attempted illegal immigration.
DA has clarified the matter in a post above. But makes the point that all you can then do is to take them to the UK.
And then if the law says it is allowed you can land them take them straight to an airport and ship them out to an offshore processing facility.
It's going to be more complicated than that because they can't have aircraft idling on the ramp waiting to take 15 refugees to Kigali at one hour's notice. They are going to have to be held in PFI gulags until they've been medically and security screened then combined into groups sufficient to utilise the aircraft efficiently. There is also going to be a blizzard of court actions while all this is going on.
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
Well we have detention centres so no problem and you simply change the law so they are only allowed to start court cases when in their destination processing centre. It is not rocket science.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
Was the Rwanda plan in the manifesto?
If not then it will fall possibly at the HoL stage.
Which will probably prompt Johnson to come up with some batty scheme for HoL reform which will be quietly dropped as the GE gets underway.
- ONS cases - Down - In hospital - Flattish, with a hint of a fall - MV beds - Flattish, with a hint of a fall - Admissions - down, R solidly below 1 now. - Deaths - up, but trend still slowing.
“ The Prime Minister and Chancellor have both apologised after being awarded Fixed Penalty Notices and I understand that both have now paid. I completely understand the frustrations and anger amongst people in Solihull right now. Solihull followed the rules diligently throughout the pandemic and it is important that those in public office set the right example.
That said, on the other side of the continent, Putin and his barbaric regime have illegally invaded Ukraine. Thousands of innocent Ukrainians, including children, have been murdered. And, the UK Government is now investigating whether Putin’s regime has used chemical weapons against innocent civilians in Mariupol.
The UK is leading the west’s efforts to support Ukraine, in particular, President Zelensky has openly praised the Prime Minister for his efforts in supporting Ukraine during this fractious period for Europe. Given the crucial point in Europe’s history right now, it is not the right time to change the leadership of the country. It’s time to move on.”
Pathetic Statement. His logic is absurd.
It is. Johnson is clinging to power because he wants to keep on being PM. That's all there is to it. It's got nothing to do with needing to 'deliver' things domestically (lols) or (even bigger lols) with saving the world from Putin.
This is why it's a no-brainer to remove him when we get the chance at the GE. It has big potential upside and is completely risk free. He brings no integrity, grip, intellect or imagination to the job, therefore nothing of value can possibly be lost by him leaving it.
Comedic value? It has to be worth something doesn't it?
I know. But I think Johnson-as-PM has cost me my sense of humour. It's another thing I hold against him. The black farce just keeps on coming and I can't surf it anymore. Eg this Rwanda 'initiative' begs a thousand jokes yet I find myself unable to make any of them.
Are you allowed to refer to a farce as black now, I thought that was now verboten labelling things that are bad as black.
I think blackmail is still allowed in polite circles . Which is fine given none of these terms relate at all to race only in the minds of weird people who obsess about race all the time
Blackmail is deemed fine by progressives, because they can pretend it's the second part of the word that's meant as derogatory, which is something they do all the time.
Comments
Crew: 0
Length: 186.4m
Range: 0
Speed: 0
Aircraft: 0
At what point has a refugee committed a crime against UK law if he is picked up at sea by the Royal Navy?
Is it legal to pick persons up at sea, compulsorily bring them into the UK and deport persons to a third country if they have not committed a crime?
https://mobile.twitter.com/PeterStefanovi2/status/1514490204970758145
Jeez! The car crash interview of the year. Cabinet Minister Simon Hart didn’t know there had been more then fifty fines issued by the police for law breaking in Downing Street!
I would have gone for Yorkshire in this case, but it is too small.
There should be such processing centres added in the Far East, India, and Continental Europe. Those 4 could provide full coverage, making the path to claiming asylum in the UK a safer and easier one than making a sea voyage.
The whole debate around immigration would lose a lot of toxicity, because those in favour of unlimited immigration could no longer accuse their opponents of 'hating refugees', because actual refugees would be getting looked after a lot better.
Looks like he has been given the interview shift that used to belong to Williamson and Jenrick, i.e. the one that even Shapps can't be bothered to defend.
So what is the point of involving the RN?
I’ve sat down now for my first beer of the day - shockingly late, I know! But I did have a glass or two of red last night after midnight, so I think I’ve technically kept up my drinking every morning on this holiday. I’m sitting in the sun in front of the cathedral and there’s some lovely opera music coming from somewhere nearby. The cathedral doesn’t look too impressive from here, but it’s gorgeous inside. I couldn’t get any decent photos in there as it’s rather dark and no flash photography allowed..
I think I’m going to have another beer and then continue with my meandering about town. Salutations!
I have no idea on the legality or otherwise of forcibly transporting somebody to a third country. I imagine quite a few will have to be done Extraordinary Rendition style; pumped full of sedatives in nappies.
The Government has proposed a deal where some people who have entered Britain and applied for asylum will be flown to Rwanda, in Africa, for their asylum applications to be processed. Do you support or oppose this proposal?
Support: 35%
Oppose: 42%
https://t.co/Y0l7389sGA
But the usual Con/Others and Leave/Remain splits.
So job done.
https://cointelegraph.com/news/what-elon-musk-s-investment-could-mean-for-twitter-s-crypto-plans/amp
There aren't that many surplus matelots anyway.
I'm left wondering if this is a scheme to nobble the Minister for Defence when he (as he will) fails to stop the masses. In terms of replacing Mr Johnson. But that would be far too cynical a thought.
Uk Nat gas now trading at 190p/therm.
Down 2/3rds from its all time high of 600p.
We should start to see some energy companies offering fixes below the cap, soon, I recon.
This RN announcement changes absolutely nothing but Johnson keeps reannouncing it because befuddled boomers who vote tory like that sort of thing and keep forgetting that they heard it before 12 months earlier.
1. migrants = return to the immediate proximate country from which they've come directly, or their home country.
2. Displaced persons and asylum seekers= return to either the first safe haven they found outside their home country, or the country they've immediately come from (provided that is safe).
Still no more blood thinner injections in my stomach which is a relief. It is black and blue.
Not a properly enjoyable comedy, like The Goodies, or 'Allo 'Allo.
Edit: and don't hurry it I appreciate your frustration. Take your time and the outcome will be far better.
Hopefully in six weeks you will be crutches and boot free, in the meantime take care. You will get there!
'Just found out that 61.3% of Rwanda's house of commons is female, almost entirely POC women at that.
Real shame to see such a concerted effort by the left to denigrate such a progressive country.'
So instead it looks like Devon. I have already noted your recommendation of 27 in Kingsbridge and I have loved Salcombe in previous visits (although decades ago). Recommendations for places to visit, stay and eat please?
In 1982, I had few concerns except who was going to change my nappy and where my next milk feed was coming from.
Here’s another statement from the UK government on Rwanda, from January 2021: “We remain concerned…by continued restrictions to civil and political rights and media freedoms”-Before going on to urge investigations into allegations of killings, deaths in custody and torture.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1514380024408944645
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY41jhIP_xI
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FP_KF_EXwAUsLTZ?format=jpg&name=large
AEGON/ISHRS NRTH AM EQ IDX FD (UK) L ACC
& AEGON/ISHRS US EQ IDX FD (UK) D ACC
be voting ?
I'd fucking love it like Musk to take it over personally but I probably hold about 1 share of twitter, very very indirectly.
Clearly it’s the devil.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/apr/14/former-darts-world-champion-ted-hankey-pleads-guilty-to-sexual-assault
Such concerted efforts surely need discouraging ?
Still, The Pritster is going to be in charge of this highly complex and contentious operation so I'm sure it'll run like fucking clockwork.
The vote in favour of Daily Mail measures is large but finite, and it puts off lots of people too.
The Tories can win from the populist right if, and only if, Labour goes out of its way to lose the election, something they can often be relied on to do.
Watching how SKS disciplines the left is going to be a telling indicator of the future.
SKS also has a a difficult decision as to whether to actually have some real policies which are distinct, or, as now, to have no significant alternative to present except that the Tories are bad at governing and corrupted by power.
For avoidance of doubt I am not advocating this. Just pointing out to all the it can't be done people that yes it very much can be done if you accept parliament is sovereign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Hart
But daft shit has consequences outside of those immediately targeted by any given piece of legislation. And it doesn't become not daft shit just because it's then enacted law.
Extraordinary rendition was the very definition of kidnapping people bundling them on a plane and flying them off somewhere, generally somewhere where pulling your fingernails off isn't frowned upon and lawyers aren't even considered.
So none of this since 1205 stuff this is all this century
If not then it will fall possibly at the HoL stage.
Which will probably prompt Johnson to come up with some batty scheme for HoL reform which will be quietly dropped as the GE gets underway.
- ONS cases - Down
- In hospital - Flattish, with a hint of a fall
- MV beds - Flattish, with a hint of a fall
- Admissions - down, R solidly below 1 now.
- Deaths - up, but trend still slowing.