Hopefully 2.1.3. As long as Uselesss is last I will be happy but think Regan is best bet, she seems to have a bit of get up and go and does not appear to want to be the Messiah.
If these details are accurate, it's very good news for the economics of the RN being able to maintain its nuclear submarine capacity into the next decade.
AUKUS details trickling out. Bloomberg says Australia will go for "modified British design w/ US parts". Guardian says "British design" w/ "heavy use of US tech." That's late 2030s. Reuters says gap filled with US fwd deployment to Aus & then Aus operating 3-5 Virginia-class. https://mobile.twitter.com/shashj/status/1633594396619808768
I seem to remember France saying that the UK was just the fifth wheel on the carriage in the deal so it wasn't even worth recalling the ambassador.
There wasn't really much actual substance to the deal at the time. That appears to have changed.
So...the scorn and mockery was not unreasonable because they didn't instantly jump from no deal to fully worked up proposals?
More that it helped the French pretend the UK hadn't benefitted much. That's a win/win.
I assumed, probably along with the rest of the British public, that most MP’s were earning a decent whack on the side. Turns out not really to be the case.
The mean outside earnings per MP are rather unexciting.
And, sorted by political party, the outside earnings of everyone except Conservatives are very unexciting (except Lammy).
It suits many in the media to portray this as an issue for MPs as a whole. It’s much more accurate to portray it as an issue for the broken, corrupt Tory party.
What’s David Lammy earned?
Westminster Accounts: Sir Keir Starmer defends Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy earning £200,000 from second jobs
Jim Davidson is a vocal Thatcherite with a side huddle in racist end of the pier stand-up.
Presumably Square Root 2 and his fellow travellers were standing outside Broadcasting House with placards during the decade in which he presented BBC One prime time quiz show Big Break?
Kenny Everett spoke at the Tory Party Conference where he suggested we Nuke Russia.
By no means the most crazy speach at that conference
"he suggested we Nuke Russia" is one way of describing the perfomance
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
It is about competence now, this. No good the Conservative party pretending to be all Dick Dastardly on this when the Pigeon evades them year in, year out.
We are nigh at 50 ways to botch asylum and the current round of 'Please just stop the boats, scrotes' lawmaking to all officialdom involved seems to have no more behind it that will actually achieve an end result as any of v the others.
There's also a question of political competence. After all, Monday was meant to be the launch of Sunak's Key Achievement. Stopping Boats.
And yet the conversation is all about "stop popular bloke saying stuff", which does sound a bit... you know... Nazi...
Whilst giving more publicity to the original comments and putting a dead cat atop something the government is meant to be proud of
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Because of Lineker? I doubt it. It’s not called Gary Linekers big footy show, after all. Football is the national game, Saturday (just about hanging on) the day for football, certainly for real fans who support non Premier league teams, but want to watch the premier highlights.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either
really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I despise professional football, but Lineker seems not to have gone down the route of trying to be the worst behaved scumbag possible. So compared to many of his peers, I don’t mind him.
How many affairs has he had now?
I like Clarkson and don't like Lineker. He should stick to football or the BBC should give him the boot. I avoid all.the inane chat on MOTD. Has he mentioned the millions he has had to pay the taxman plus the NI contributions... now that is worth talking about.
Did you make the same argument about Clarkson's newspaper columns where he expressed political opinions?
No as he is being paid by the Times to write such columns. Lineker should stick to football ..the BBC don't want him to express political.opinions. its meant to be unbiased...
The BBC don’t want him to express political opinions on air.
But it’s interesting you now think his freedom of speech should be removed. I assume you’d say the same thing it it was something you agreed with? Yeah, right
Nope noonecwho works for the BBC shoukd. They should keep.it buttoned.
Why?
Why are you removing free speech? He is a football pundit. He can say what he likes on politics. Same goes for Clarkson. Nowt to do with the BBC or you.
He works for the BBC there is a difference. If the BBC get rid of the license fee he can say what he likes. Until then he can stfu.
So did Clarkson and he wrote for the Sun and the Times at that time, so what.
What about everyone else who works for the BBC as pundits, comedians, etc and make political comments. Are you going to fire every comedian, every talk show host?
You would be at home in the USSR.
There are quite a lot of comedians on the BBC who should be fired.
Not for that reason, just because they're a bit rubbish.
Over supply the issue. Very few trained in the classic arts such as punning.
It's undoubtedly true that they did discuss more than was shown in the film, but I note they are reluctant to say on *what* grounds they refused it if it wasn't pure nimbyism by the dark skies obsessive and the planning barrister who confused metres and acres (and claimed it was his dyslexia so that it doesn't matter that his legal documents are incorrect).
My understanding of planning law regarding farm tracks - which may of course be entirely wrong - is that they have also placed a somewhat novel interpretation on it.
The amusing part of that dispute really is that both of them deserve to look like idiots. WODC for being a bunch of third rate NIMBY muppets, and Clarkson, for being - well, Clarkson.
And they do...
I’ve no doubt that the series presents one side of the story. And yet Clarkson is trying to farm, and is trying get a business going, and met a wall of objection, leading to things being far worse than needed. People in the countryside need jobs too, or soon it will all be rich folk who have either retired or who commute to London twice a week.
The difficult truth is that there isn't any point in large parts of the countryside. The very worst type of development that can take place is the type of incremental suburbanisation that happens by default over time... so people have no connection at all to the land, and lead urban lifestyles where they drive around long distances by car between restaurants, shops, schools, railway stations etc. There is also a whole load of weird stuff going on in remote fields far away from public views.
Regarding the countryside, it is better to have a plan to either a) develop it for housing/new communities b) use it for ecological enhancement c) protect it where it is a valued landscape d) use it for food production. But such a plan is politically impossible, it is held back by deeply entrenched conservative forces.
If you look at England - then 87% of the land falls in to this 'undeveloped' category'. The most obvious price of these 'deeply entrenched conservative forces' is massive missed opportunities to provide for the basic needs of an expanded population through housing; but also a failure to take advantage of the opportunities to build infrastructure, renewable energy, employment growth, jobs etc.
You don't think it might also be a missed opportunity to grow some food?
Because after all, it's not like there's currently a shortage of grain in the world, or water stress in many grain growing areas due to warming climates?
Yeah absolutely, that was one of my options. One issue is that not enough weight is given to the protection of the Best and Most Versatile land in planning decisions.
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
The problem with this is if they have some success in the policy, and the boats stop because people realise that they are barred from claiming asylum upon getting here. What do Labour do then - agree to continue it or stop it?
How do they get success? They won't resource the Border Agency or the Home Office or the legal system They don't have the detention facilities and can't build new ones They won't fund new detention facilities even if they manage to find a site that the locals don;t go apeshit about They can't deport to Rwanda because Rwanda won't take them They can't return most home because they don't have and won't get agreements to do so And there's the minor issue of becoming international pariahs for proposing to break international law
Its a non-policy. People very clearly want action, and this is inaction. I can see Labour actually gaining traction the longer this goes on because they actually have a workable proposal...
It's undoubtedly true that they did discuss more than was shown in the film, but I note they are reluctant to say on *what* grounds they refused it if it wasn't pure nimbyism by the dark skies obsessive and the planning barrister who confused metres and acres (and claimed it was his dyslexia so that it doesn't matter that his legal documents are incorrect).
My understanding of planning law regarding farm tracks - which may of course be entirely wrong - is that they have also placed a somewhat novel interpretation on it.
The amusing part of that dispute really is that both of them deserve to look like idiots. WODC for being a bunch of third rate NIMBY muppets, and Clarkson, for being - well, Clarkson.
And they do...
I’ve no doubt that the series presents one side of the story. And yet Clarkson is trying to farm, and is trying get a business going, and met a wall of objection, leading to things being far worse than needed. People in the countryside need jobs too, or soon it will all be rich folk who have either retired or who commute to London twice a week.
The difficult truth is that there isn't any point in large parts of the countryside. The very worst type of development that can take place is the type of incremental suburbanisation that happens by default over time... so people have no connection at all to the land, and lead urban lifestyles where they drive around long distances by car between restaurants, shops, schools, railway stations etc. There is also a whole load of weird stuff going on in remote fields far away from public views.
Regarding the countryside, it is better to have a plan to either a) develop it for housing/new communities b) use it for ecological enhancement c) protect it where it is a valued landscape d) use it for food production. But such a plan is politically impossible, it is held back by deeply entrenched conservative forces.
If you look at England - then 87% of the land falls in to this 'undeveloped' category'. The most obvious price of these 'deeply entrenched conservative forces' is massive missed opportunities to provide for the basic needs of an expanded population through housing; but also a failure to take advantage of the opportunities to build infrastructure, renewable energy, employment growth, jobs etc.
You don't think it might also be a missed opportunity to grow some food?
Because after all, it's not like there's currently a shortage of grain in the world, or water stress in many grain growing areas due to warming climates?
Yeah absolutely, that was one of my options. One issue is that not enough weight is given to the protection of the Best and Most Versatile land in planning decisions.
Which, again, would work against Clarkson, who had to give up decent farmland for his car park...
I see the PB free speech aficionados, so keen to defend Jeremy Clarkson when he advocated a misogynistic and brutally sexualised punishment of someone he didn’t like for the crime of…something…, are very keen to stop Gary Lineker tweeting his opinions. Funny that.
This is why I like Linekar more than Clarkson (in a herpes vs. siphilis sort of way). Linekar is a standard media prat with standard low information left wing opinions. Clarkson is a raging remoaner Cameronite posing as a right wing commentator. Linekar is making a far more honest contribution to the debate.
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
It is about competence now, this. No good the Conservative party pretending to be all Dick Dastardly on this when the Pigeon evades them year in, year out.
We are nigh at 50 ways to botch asylum and the current round of 'Please just stop the boats, scrotes' lawmaking to all officialdom involved seems to have no more behind it that will actually achieve an end result as any of v the others.
There's also a question of political competence. After all, Monday was meant to be the launch of Sunak's Key Achievement. Stopping Boats.
And yet the conversation is all about "stop popular bloke saying stuff", which does sound a bit... you know... Nazi...
Whilst giving more publicity to the original comments and putting a dead cat atop something the government is meant to be proud of
If they had more confidence in the policy, they'd have been sensible simple to say that Lineker has a right to his opinion, but it's bollocks.
The reality seems to be that the policy was deliberately designed to fan the flames, rather than actually to address the problem.
Some posho on R4 (calls football "soccer" - always a bad sign) trying to make out that Lineker expressing his opinion and the BBC chair getting his job after helping Johnson get a bung from a mate are somehow equivalent - let left and right both have their scalp and move on. Have we really become so tolerant of corruption and intolerant of dissent that we can accept this kind of false equivalence? Shocking.
Why is a “posho” calling it “soccer” a bad sign? Depending where he went to school, association football will have been soccer to him and whatever variant team ball game they played at school would have been football - whether Rugby Football, Winchester Football, Eton Football, Harrow Football or any other obscure but earlier game.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Because of Lineker? I doubt it. It’s not called Gary Linekers big footy show, after all. Football is the national game, Saturday (just about hanging on) the day for football, certainly for real fans who support non Premier league teams, but want to watch the premier highlights.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either
really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I despise professional football, but Lineker seems not to have gone down the route of trying to be the worst behaved scumbag possible. So compared to many of his peers, I don’t mind him.
How many affairs has he had now?
I like Clarkson and don't like Lineker. He should stick to football or the BBC should give him the boot. I avoid all.the inane chat on MOTD. Has he mentioned the millions he has had to pay the taxman plus the NI contributions... now that is worth talking about.
Did you make the same argument about Clarkson's newspaper columns where he expressed political opinions?
No as he is being paid by the Times to write such columns. Lineker should stick to football ..the BBC don't want him to express political.opinions. its meant to be unbiased...
The BBC don’t want him to express political opinions on air.
But it’s interesting you now think his freedom of speech should be removed. I assume you’d say the same thing it it was something you agreed with? Yeah, right
Nope noonecwho works for the BBC shoukd. They should keep.it buttoned.
Why?
Why are you removing free speech? He is a football pundit. He can say what he likes on politics. Same goes for Clarkson. Nowt to do with the BBC or you.
He works for the BBC there is a difference. If the BBC get rid of the license fee he can say what he likes. Until then he can stfu.
This will inevitably sold on a false prospectus of automation leading to a much smaller crew. This was a concern that the RAN had with Virginia (and the fact that Congress told them to GTFO). They've struggled to crew the Collins which only has a complement of 50 so full fat Virginia at 130+ always looked like a stretch.
The RAN started off wanting an established design to derisk the program avoiding a repeat of the Barracuda experience but now they've ended up with the exact opposite of that.
Good news/bad news for the RN. There will be some economies of scale and production that they badly need (average Astute build time: 10 years 3 months, average Virginia build time: 3 years 0 months) but they are definitely going to lose some officers and rates that are very hard to replace to lateral transfers.
I think the economies of scale probably outweigh the costs. Possibly by rather a lot ? Short and slow production runs just for the RN are heinously expensive.
Of course none of this is yet confirmed.
It also depends how different the two SSNR variants are. If the MoD has any sense they'll go with the same US CMS/weapons fit as the Australians.
It's undoubtedly true that they did discuss more than was shown in the film, but I note they are reluctant to say on *what* grounds they refused it if it wasn't pure nimbyism by the dark skies obsessive and the planning barrister who confused metres and acres (and claimed it was his dyslexia so that it doesn't matter that his legal documents are incorrect).
My understanding of planning law regarding farm tracks - which may of course be entirely wrong - is that they have also placed a somewhat novel interpretation on it.
The amusing part of that dispute really is that both of them deserve to look like idiots. WODC for being a bunch of third rate NIMBY muppets, and Clarkson, for being - well, Clarkson.
And they do...
I’ve no doubt that the series presents one side of the story. And yet Clarkson is trying to farm, and is trying get a business going, and met a wall of objection, leading to things being far worse than needed. People in the countryside need jobs too, or soon it will all be rich folk who have either retired or who commute to London twice a week.
I’m really enjoying Clarkson’s Farm, and especially the planning meeting episode (no spoilers please - I’m only up to and including that episode).
The farming scenes are absolutely excellent, if a struggle to watch at times (the calving was at once gross and heartwarming).
It does, of course, only show one side of the story vis a vis locals’ attitudes to economic development, but nevertheless offers an interesting window on rural life.
I've been to too many planning meetings, I'm worried about watching that episode in case it triggers PTSD.
I once had a planning decision on the 24 December which was their deadline for producing it to extend my garage and build a porch. The decision referred to:
Our house being on a corner plot. It isn't
Our plot being both large and small
Our house being both detached and semi detached
But the best bit was I was given permission to build a Conservatory, which was nice of them, but I already had one and preferred to go with my original decision for a porch and garage extension.
It was clear there was a cut and paste job going on. You could see where the subject matter changed. I assume panic because of the deadline and maybe a Christmas party.
They told me it was ok anyway. I wasn't happy until it at least reflected some element of reality, which they did. They refused to change the decision date, which potentially could have had an impact if I was a laggard at getting stuff done, which I wasn't.
My only other two planning permission applications had similar if not quite as bizarre elements.
This will inevitably sold on a false prospectus of automation leading to a much smaller crew. This was a concern that the RAN had with Virginia (and the fact that Congress told them to GTFO). They've struggled to crew the Collins which only has a complement of 50 so full fat Virginia at 130+ always looked like a stretch.
The RAN started off wanting an established design to derisk the program avoiding a repeat of the Barracuda experience but now they've ended up with the exact opposite of that.
Good news/bad news for the RN. There will be some economies of scale and production that they badly need (average Astute build time: 10 years 3 months, average Virginia build time: 3 years 0 months) but they are definitely going to lose some officers and rates that are very hard to replace to lateral transfers.
I think the economies of scale probably outweigh the costs. Possibly by rather a lot ? Short and slow production runs just for the RN are heinously expensive.
Of course none of this is yet confirmed.
It also depends how different the two SSNR variants are. If the MoD has any sense they'll go with the same US CMS/weapons fit as the Australians.
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
The problem with this is if they have some success in the policy, and the boats stop because people realise that they are barred from claiming asylum upon getting here. What do Labour do then - agree to continue it or stop it?
How do they get success? They won't resource the Border Agency or the Home Office or the legal system They don't have the detention facilities and can't build new ones They won't fund new detention facilities even if they manage to find a site that the locals don;t go apeshit about They can't deport to Rwanda because Rwanda won't take them They can't return most home because they don't have and won't get agreements to do so And there's the minor issue of becoming international pariahs for proposing to break international law
Its a non-policy. People very clearly want action, and this is inaction. I can see Labour actually gaining traction the longer this goes on because they actually have a workable proposal...
Part of me thinks the proposals are so out there (it might not be legal but we'll try it for you, Red Wall) that it might be counter productive. That people who really really want the boats stopped might go 'you know, this isn't realistic' and snap awake.
Good morning, One and all. I don’t think that Rishi expected quite the sort of comments that he’s getting.
Morning OKC. These boys are not very good at it , put their foot in their mouth regularly, you would almost think they are not in touch with the public.
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
It is about competence now, this. No good the Conservative party pretending to be all Dick Dastardly on this when the Pigeon evades them year in, year out.
We are nigh at 50 ways to botch asylum and the current round of 'Please just stop the boats, scrotes' lawmaking to all officialdom involved seems to have no more behind it that will actually achieve an end result as any of v the others.
There's also a question of political competence. After all, Monday was meant to be the launch of Sunak's Key Achievement. Stopping Boats.
And yet the conversation is all about "stop popular bloke saying stuff", which does sound a bit... you know... Nazi...
Whilst giving more publicity to the original comments and putting a dead cat atop something the government is meant to be proud of
If they had more confidence in the policy, they'd have been sensible simple to say that Lineker has a right to his opinion, but it's bollocks.
The reality seems to be that the policy was deliberately designed to fan the flames, rather than actually to address the problem.
Doesn't entirely seem to be working, though.
Half-formed thought.
Truss was an uncomprehending cosplay Thatcher. She couldn't pull it off because she didn't really understand what she was doing.
Is Sunak a similarly uncomprehending cosplay Johnson?
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
The problem with this is if they have some success in the policy, and the boats stop because people realise that they are barred from claiming asylum upon getting here. What do Labour do then - agree to continue it or stop it?
How do they get success? They won't resource the Border Agency or the Home Office or the legal system They don't have the detention facilities and can't build new ones They won't fund new detention facilities even if they manage to find a site that the locals don;t go apeshit about They can't deport to Rwanda because Rwanda won't take them They can't return most home because they don't have and won't get agreements to do so And there's the minor issue of becoming international pariahs for proposing to break international law
Its a non-policy. People very clearly want action, and this is inaction. I can see Labour actually gaining traction the longer this goes on because they actually have a workable proposal...
I don't doubt any of the above. But if it has enough effect that the boats stop coming, then it will create a problem/dilemma for labour.
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
It is about competence now, this. No good the Conservative party pretending to be all Dick Dastardly on this when the Pigeon evades them year in, year out.
We are nigh at 50 ways to botch asylum and the current round of 'Please just stop the boats, scrotes' lawmaking to all officialdom involved seems to have no more behind it that will actually achieve an end result as any of v the others.
The fact that Starmer went on the small boats with all of his six questions at PMQs yesterday shows that Labour is quite happy to talk about the issue. Labour may be calling this wrong, of course, but it's hard to believe this has not been focused grouped to death. The government is at the delivery stage now.
Since everyone has an opinion on this here is my twopenneth. All the main players are wrong in this instance.
I think the Government are very wrong in their policy regarding the boats in the channel. I think Lineker is very wrong in his 1930s Nazi comparison. I think those wanting to silence Lineker or have him sacked from the BBC are very wrong to try and do that. He may be very wrong but he has the right to say what he thinks.
A nice symmetry to start the day. Everyone is very wrong.
It's undoubtedly true that they did discuss more than was shown in the film, but I note they are reluctant to say on *what* grounds they refused it if it wasn't pure nimbyism by the dark skies obsessive and the planning barrister who confused metres and acres (and claimed it was his dyslexia so that it doesn't matter that his legal documents are incorrect).
My understanding of planning law regarding farm tracks - which may of course be entirely wrong - is that they have also placed a somewhat novel interpretation on it.
The amusing part of that dispute really is that both of them deserve to look like idiots. WODC for being a bunch of third rate NIMBY muppets, and Clarkson, for being - well, Clarkson.
And they do...
I’ve no doubt that the series presents one side of the story. And yet Clarkson is trying to farm, and is trying get a business going, and met a wall of objection, leading to things being far worse than needed. People in the countryside need jobs too, or soon it will all be rich folk who have either retired or who commute to London twice a week.
The difficult truth is that there isn't any point in large parts of the countryside. The very worst type of development that can take place is the type of incremental suburbanisation that happens by default over time... so people have no connection at all to the land, and lead urban lifestyles where they drive around long distances by car between restaurants, shops, schools, railway stations etc. There is also a whole load of weird stuff going on in remote fields far away from public views.
Regarding the countryside, it is better to have a plan to either a) develop it for housing/new communities b) use it for ecological enhancement c) protect it where it is a valued landscape d) use it for food production. But such a plan is politically impossible, it is held back by deeply entrenched conservative forces.
If you look at England - then 87% of the land falls in to this 'undeveloped' category'. The most obvious price of these 'deeply entrenched conservative forces' is massive missed opportunities to provide for the basic needs of an expanded population through housing; but also a failure to take advantage of the opportunities to build infrastructure, renewable energy, employment growth, jobs etc.
You don't think it might also be a missed opportunity to grow some food?
Because after all, it's not like there's currently a shortage of grain in the world, or water stress in many grain growing areas due to warming climates?
Yeah absolutely, that was one of my options. One issue is that not enough weight is given to the protection of the Best and Most Versatile land in planning decisions.
Though funnily enough now people seek to use arguments of protection of such to prevent use of low grade land. Hadn't seen that nimby tactic before but is getting more common. Goes like this:
I'm not against development (liar) but we need land for food security etc.
This is very low quality land that barely produces any, if at all.
Since everyone has an opinion on this here is my twopenneth. All the main players are wrong in this instance.
I think the Government are very wrong in their policy regarding the boats in the channel. I think Lineker is very wrong in his 1930s Nazi comparison. I think those wanting to silence Lineker or have him sacked from the BBC are very wrong to try and do that. He may be very wrong but he has the right to say what he thinks.
A nice symmetry to start the day. Everyone is very wrong.
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
The problem with this is if they have some success in the policy, and the boats stop because people realise that they are barred from claiming asylum upon getting here. What do Labour do then - agree to continue it or stop it?
How do they get success? They won't resource the Border Agency or the Home Office or the legal system They don't have the detention facilities and can't build new ones They won't fund new detention facilities even if they manage to find a site that the locals don;t go apeshit about They can't deport to Rwanda because Rwanda won't take them They can't return most home because they don't have and won't get agreements to do so And there's the minor issue of becoming international pariahs for proposing to break international law
Its a non-policy. People very clearly want action, and this is inaction. I can see Labour actually gaining traction the longer this goes on because they actually have a workable proposal...
Part of me thinks the proposals are so out there (it might not be legal but we'll try it for you, Red Wall) that it might be counter productive. That people who really really want the boats stopped might go 'you know, this isn't realistic' and snap awake.
Then again maybe its music to their ears.
Remember that most voters don't know how most things work. They don't know the detail and won't care for some smart arse trying to school them on them. What they expect is that if ministers promise building a Ladder to Heaven that they actually build it.
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
The problem with this is if they have some success in the policy, and the boats stop because people realise that they are barred from claiming asylum upon getting here. What do Labour do then - agree to continue it or stop it?
How do they get success? They won't resource the Border Agency or the Home Office or the legal system They don't have the detention facilities and can't build new ones They won't fund new detention facilities even if they manage to find a site that the locals don;t go apeshit about They can't deport to Rwanda because Rwanda won't take them They can't return most home because they don't have and won't get agreements to do so And there's the minor issue of becoming international pariahs for proposing to break international law
Its a non-policy. People very clearly want action, and this is inaction. I can see Labour actually gaining traction the longer this goes on because they actually have a workable proposal...
Part of me thinks the proposals are so out there (it might not be legal but we'll try it for you, Red Wall) that it might be counter productive. That people who really really want the boats stopped might go 'you know, this isn't realistic' and snap awake.
Then again maybe its music to their ears.
The problem isn’t really the idea that you need to disincentivise making the crossing (for one thing because it is fraught with danger and risk of loss of life), it’s the fact that the new law is being proposed in a vacuum. The Tories like to think (or at least want people to think) that this is a magic wand they’ll wave and everything will go away. It’s not. There needs to be a new approach on a number of fronts. That they don’t acknowledge this is because it’s easier to throw out red meat rather than have a sensible conversation with the electorate. It reeks of a dying government.
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
It is about competence now, this. No good the Conservative party pretending to be all Dick Dastardly on this when the Pigeon evades them year in, year out.
We are nigh at 50 ways to botch asylum and the current round of 'Please just stop the boats, scrotes' lawmaking to all officialdom involved seems to have no more behind it that will actually achieve an end result as any of v the others.
The fact that Starmer went on the small boats with all of his six questions at PMQs yesterday shows that Labour is quite happy to talk about the issue. Labour may be calling this wrong, of course, but it's hard to believe this has not been focused grouped to death. The government is at the delivery stage now.
Does it disappoint you that Starmer went on competence? From what I can tell, Starmer thinks that the boats need stopping without simply opening the border.
This will inevitably sold on a false prospectus of automation leading to a much smaller crew. This was a concern that the RAN had with Virginia (and the fact that Congress told them to GTFO). They've struggled to crew the Collins which only has a complement of 50 so full fat Virginia at 130+ always looked like a stretch.
The RAN started off wanting an established design to derisk the program avoiding a repeat of the Barracuda experience but now they've ended up with the exact opposite of that.
Good news/bad news for the RN. There will be some economies of scale and production that they badly need (average Astute build time: 10 years 3 months, average Virginia build time: 3 years 0 months) but they are definitely going to lose some officers and rates that are very hard to replace to lateral transfers.
I think the economies of scale probably outweigh the costs. Possibly by rather a lot ? Short and slow production runs just for the RN are heinously expensive.
Of course none of this is yet confirmed.
It also depends how different the two SSNR variants are. If the MoD has any sense they'll go with the same US CMS/weapons fit as the Australians.
So they'll insist on something different?
Dunno, they've finally given up the long running obsession with the horizontally launched TLAM (Tomahawk Land Attack Missile) and the "bomb shop" so the SSNR will have VLS (Vertical Launch System). So that was a rare outbreak of logical thinking.
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
It is about competence now, this. No good the Conservative party pretending to be all Dick Dastardly on this when the Pigeon evades them year in, year out.
We are nigh at 50 ways to botch asylum and the current round of 'Please just stop the boats, scrotes' lawmaking to all officialdom involved seems to have no more behind it that will actually achieve an end result as any of v the others.
There's also a question of political competence. After all, Monday was meant to be the launch of Sunak's Key Achievement. Stopping Boats.
And yet the conversation is all about "stop popular bloke saying stuff", which does sound a bit... you know... Nazi...
Whilst giving more publicity to the original comments and putting a dead cat atop something the government is meant to be proud of
If they had more confidence in the policy, they'd have been sensible simple to say that Lineker has a right to his opinion, but it's bollocks.
The reality seems to be that the policy was deliberately designed to fan the flames, rather than actually to address the problem.
Doesn't entirely seem to be working, though.
Half-formed thought.
Truss was an uncomprehending cosplay Thatcher. She couldn't pull it off because she didn't really understand what she was doing.
Is Sunak a similarly uncomprehending cosplay Johnson?
He happily worked for Boris for years and had no real policy disagreements if his appointments and targets indicate. A large chunk of his MPs would prefer Boris in office.
It wouldn't surprise if he was cosplaying as a result.
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
It is about competence now, this. No good the Conservative party pretending to be all Dick Dastardly on this when the Pigeon evades them year in, year out.
We are nigh at 50 ways to botch asylum and the current round of 'Please just stop the boats, scrotes' lawmaking to all officialdom involved seems to have no more behind it that will actually achieve an end result as any of v the others.
There's also a question of political competence. After all, Monday was meant to be the launch of Sunak's Key Achievement. Stopping Boats.
And yet the conversation is all about "stop popular bloke saying stuff", which does sound a bit... you know... Nazi...
Whilst giving more publicity to the original comments and putting a dead cat atop something the government is meant to be proud of
If they had more confidence in the policy, they'd have been sensible simple to say that Lineker has a right to his opinion, but it's bollocks.
The reality seems to be that the policy was deliberately designed to fan the flames, rather than actually to address the problem.
Doesn't entirely seem to be working, though.
Half-formed thought.
Truss was an uncomprehending cosplay Thatcher. She couldn't pull it off because she didn't really understand what she was doing.
Is Sunak a similarly uncomprehending cosplay Johnson?
I don't know whether Sunak is seriously trying to win the election. The establishment seems ready for the handover to Labour. Sunak is the establishment man. Just seems like he's running the clock down to me.
Some posho on R4 (calls football "soccer" - always a bad sign) trying to make out that Lineker expressing his opinion and the BBC chair getting his job after helping Johnson get a bung from a mate are somehow equivalent - let left and right both have their scalp and move on. Have we really become so tolerant of corruption and intolerant of dissent that we can accept this kind of false equivalence? Shocking.
My uncle, a Navy man, now in his late 80’s, always used to confuse me by asking how my football was going. I don’t play football, I play rugby, I’d say. He, being a classical scholar, always referred to rugby as football and football as soccer. We sometimes get sniffy about football being called soccer (e.g. by the Americans) yet it’s use here has long, long roots, to differentiate from rugby football vs association football.
Not sure what studying the classics has to do with it, as far as I am aware neither the Romans nor the ancient Greeks played either game...
I was associating it with the great rugby playing public schools.
Yeah sorry I was being unnecessarily obtuse. My dad went to a private school on a scholarship and has explained the whole rugby football vs association football thing to me. Since 99.9% of the population call football football and rugby rugby I think that people who cling to calling football soccer nowadays (in this country) are just trying to signal that "I am considerably posher than you". In any case, it immediately identifies them as elitist and out of touch, and proudly so, which is a useful tell.
One could almost say the same type of people who might also have voted LD in 2019 when common people in the redwall were voting Conservative under Boris but have now switched back to voting Tory under Rishi now it can be an elitist party again.
The only group Rishi has made a net gain from are 2019 LD voters
Jim Davidson is a vocal Thatcherite with a side huddle in racist end of the pier stand-up.
Presumably Square Root 2 and his fellow travellers were standing outside Broadcasting House with placards during the decade in which he presented BBC One prime time quiz show Big Break?
Kenny Everett spoke at the Tory Party Conference where he suggested we Nuke Russia.
By no means the most crazy speach at that conference
"he suggested we Nuke Russia" is one way of describing the perfomance
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
It is about competence now, this. No good the Conservative party pretending to be all Dick Dastardly on this when the Pigeon evades them year in, year out.
We are nigh at 50 ways to botch asylum and the current round of 'Please just stop the boats, scrotes' lawmaking to all officialdom involved seems to have no more behind it that will actually achieve an end result as any of v the others.
The fact that Starmer went on the small boats with all of his six questions at PMQs yesterday shows that Labour is quite happy to talk about the issue. Labour may be calling this wrong, of course, but it's hard to believe this has not been focused grouped to death. The government is at the delivery stage now.
Does it disappoint you that Starmer went on competence? From what I can tell, Starmer thinks that the boats need stopping without simply opening the border.
The boats should be stopped. Of course they should.
It's undoubtedly true that they did discuss more than was shown in the film, but I note they are reluctant to say on *what* grounds they refused it if it wasn't pure nimbyism by the dark skies obsessive and the planning barrister who confused metres and acres (and claimed it was his dyslexia so that it doesn't matter that his legal documents are incorrect).
My understanding of planning law regarding farm tracks - which may of course be entirely wrong - is that they have also placed a somewhat novel interpretation on it.
The amusing part of that dispute really is that both of them deserve to look like idiots. WODC for being a bunch of third rate NIMBY muppets, and Clarkson, for being - well, Clarkson.
And they do...
I’ve no doubt that the series presents one side of the story. And yet Clarkson is trying to farm, and is trying get a business going, and met a wall of objection, leading to things being far worse than needed. People in the countryside need jobs too, or soon it will all be rich folk who have either retired or who commute to London twice a week.
The difficult truth is that there isn't any point in large parts of the countryside. The very worst type of development that can take place is the type of incremental suburbanisation that happens by default over time... so people have no connection at all to the land, and lead urban lifestyles where they drive around long distances by car between restaurants, shops, schools, railway stations etc. There is also a whole load of weird stuff going on in remote fields far away from public views.
Regarding the countryside, it is better to have a plan to either a) develop it for housing/new communities b) use it for ecological enhancement c) protect it where it is a valued landscape d) use it for food production. But such a plan is politically impossible, it is held back by deeply entrenched conservative forces.
If you look at England - then 87% of the land falls in to this 'undeveloped' category'. The most obvious price of these 'deeply entrenched conservative forces' is massive missed opportunities to provide for the basic needs of an expanded population through housing; but also a failure to take advantage of the opportunities to build infrastructure, renewable energy, employment growth, jobs etc.
You don't think it might also be a missed opportunity to grow some food?
Because after all, it's not like there's currently a shortage of grain in the world, or water stress in many grain growing areas due to warming climates?
Yeah absolutely, that was one of my options. One issue is that not enough weight is given to the protection of the Best and Most Versatile land in planning decisions.
Though funnily enough now people seek to use arguments of protection of such to prevent use of low grade land. Hadn't seen that nimby tactic before but is getting more common. Goes like this:
I'm not against development (liar) but we need land for food security etc.
This is very low quality land that barely produces any, if at all.
...you can't trust a rating and expert opinion.
I think this is an area where the land is graded by DEFRA, so that line of argument doesn't go far.
Since everyone has an opinion on this here is my twopenneth. All the main players are wrong in this instance.
I think the Government are very wrong in their policy regarding the boats in the channel. I think Lineker is very wrong in his 1930s Nazi comparison. I think those wanting to silence Lineker or have him sacked from the BBC are very wrong to try and do that. He may be very wrong but he has the right to say what he thinks.
A nice symmetry to start the day. Everyone is very wrong.
On the substance of what Lineker said, even though I get where he was coming from on the dehumanising and nationalist language the government uses, it’s wrong to reference Nazi Germany because we know how that ended and we know that’s not how it will end here. For that reason, it’s wrong to draw any kind of overall equivalence even when there are some small parallels in specific areas. More generally, if you haven’t read this, you should:
Since everyone has an opinion on this here is my twopenneth. All the main players are wrong in this instance.
I think the Government are very wrong in their policy regarding the boats in the channel. I think Lineker is very wrong in his 1930s Nazi comparison. I think those wanting to silence Lineker or have him sacked from the BBC are very wrong to try and do that. He may be very wrong but he has the right to say what he thinks.
A nice symmetry to start the day. Everyone is very wrong.
Some posho on R4 (calls football "soccer" - always a bad sign) trying to make out that Lineker expressing his opinion and the BBC chair getting his job after helping Johnson get a bung from a mate are somehow equivalent - let left and right both have their scalp and move on. Have we really become so tolerant of corruption and intolerant of dissent that we can accept this kind of false equivalence? Shocking.
My uncle, a Navy man, now in his late 80’s, always used to confuse me by asking how my football was going. I don’t play football, I play rugby, I’d say. He, being a classical scholar, always referred to rugby as football and football as soccer. We sometimes get sniffy about football being called soccer (e.g. by the Americans) yet it’s use here has long, long roots, to differentiate from rugby football vs association football.
Generally rugby football or rugby union is the poshest and most played at public schools, then association football ot soccer which is mainly played at public school by those who aren't in the 1st XV or 2nd or 3rd XV for rugby football and then rugby league which is northern and generally not played at all in public schools
Since everyone has an opinion on this here is my twopenneth. All the main players are wrong in this instance.
I think the Government are very wrong in their policy regarding the boats in the channel. I think Lineker is very wrong in his 1930s Nazi comparison. I think those wanting to silence Lineker or have him sacked from the BBC are very wrong to try and do that. He may be very wrong but he has the right to say what he thinks.
A nice symmetry to start the day. Everyone is very wrong.
You're missing one final line to complete the circle:
The BBC are wrong to regard him as their most valued 'talent' and could use licence fee payers' money more effectively.
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
It is about competence now, this. No good the Conservative party pretending to be all Dick Dastardly on this when the Pigeon evades them year in, year out.
We are nigh at 50 ways to botch asylum and the current round of 'Please just stop the boats, scrotes' lawmaking to all officialdom involved seems to have no more behind it that will actually achieve an end result as any of v the others.
The fact that Starmer went on the small boats with all of his six questions at PMQs yesterday shows that Labour is quite happy to talk about the issue. Labour may be calling this wrong, of course, but it's hard to believe this has not been focused grouped to death. The government is at the delivery stage now.
Does it disappoint you that Starmer went on competence? From what I can tell, Starmer thinks that the boats need stopping without simply opening the border.
The boats should be stopped. Of course they should.
I'm reminded of that bit in The Thick of It when Tucker says "should does not mean yes".
Hugh Abbot : Malcolm, I've talked to the PM and this is completely kosher as far as he's concerned. He gave the go-ahead and he said, you know, bounce the Treasury.
Malcolm Tucker : You don't seem to understand that I am gonna have to mop up a fucking hurricane of piss here from all of these neurotics! What did the Prime Minister actually say to you?
Hugh Abbot : He actually said this is exactly the kind of thing we should be doing.
Malcolm Tucker : What did he actually say?
Hugh Abbot : He said this is exactly the sort of thing we should be doing.
Malcolm Tucker : 'SHOULD' be doing. 'Should' does not mean 'yes'.
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
The problem with this is if they have some success in the policy, and the boats stop because people realise that they are barred from claiming asylum upon getting here. What do Labour do then - agree to continue it or stop it?
How do they get success? They won't resource the Border Agency or the Home Office or the legal system They don't have the detention facilities and can't build new ones They won't fund new detention facilities even if they manage to find a site that the locals don;t go apeshit about They can't deport to Rwanda because Rwanda won't take them They can't return most home because they don't have and won't get agreements to do so And there's the minor issue of becoming international pariahs for proposing to break international law
Its a non-policy. People very clearly want action, and this is inaction. I can see Labour actually gaining traction the longer this goes on because they actually have a workable proposal...
Part of me thinks the proposals are so out there (it might not be legal but we'll try it for you, Red Wall) that it might be counter productive. That people who really really want the boats stopped might go 'you know, this isn't realistic' and snap awake.
Then again maybe its music to their ears.
Remember that most voters don't know how most things work. They don't know the detail and won't care for some smart arse trying to school them on them. What they expect is that if ministers promise building a Ladder to Heaven that they actually build it.
Indeed. Which is how there is so much folly. No country that is part of the international order can control its borders with regard to refugees, or those claim such status, who have actually physically arrived. SFAICS no government is prepared to say so explicitly.
Since everyone has an opinion on this here is my twopenneth. All the main players are wrong in this instance.
I think the Government are very wrong in their policy regarding the boats in the channel. I think Lineker is very wrong in his 1930s Nazi comparison. I think those wanting to silence Lineker or have him sacked from the BBC are very wrong to try and do that. He may be very wrong but he has the right to say what he thinks.
A nice symmetry to start the day. Everyone is very wrong.
I think you're right!
Nah, you're wrong
I was trying to work out how I could suggest you're both wrong without getting caught in a logical paradox, but I can't.
It's undoubtedly true that they did discuss more than was shown in the film, but I note they are reluctant to say on *what* grounds they refused it if it wasn't pure nimbyism by the dark skies obsessive and the planning barrister who confused metres and acres (and claimed it was his dyslexia so that it doesn't matter that his legal documents are incorrect).
My understanding of planning law regarding farm tracks - which may of course be entirely wrong - is that they have also placed a somewhat novel interpretation on it.
The amusing part of that dispute really is that both of them deserve to look like idiots. WODC for being a bunch of third rate NIMBY muppets, and Clarkson, for being - well, Clarkson.
And they do...
I’ve no doubt that the series presents one side of the story. And yet Clarkson is trying to farm, and is trying get a business going, and met a wall of objection, leading to things being far worse than needed. People in the countryside need jobs too, or soon it will all be rich folk who have either retired or who commute to London twice a week.
I’m really enjoying Clarkson’s Farm, and especially the planning meeting episode (no spoilers please - I’m only up to and including that episode).
The farming scenes are absolutely excellent, if a struggle to watch at times (the calving was at once gross and heartwarming).
It does, of course, only show one side of the story vis a vis locals’ attitudes to economic development, but nevertheless offers an interesting window on rural life.
I've been to too many planning meetings, I'm worried about watching that episode in case it triggers PTSD.
I once had a planning decision on the 24 December which was their deadline for producing it to extend my garage and build a porch. The decision referred to:
Our house being on a corner plot. It isn't
Our plot being both large and small
Our house being both detached and semi detached
But the best bit was I was given permission to build a Conservatory, which was nice of them, but I already had one and preferred to go with my original decision for a porch and garage extension.
It was clear there was a cut and paste job going on. You could see where the subject matter changed. I assume panic because of the deadline and maybe a Christmas party.
They told me it was ok anyway. I wasn't happy until it at least reflected some element of reality, which they did. They refused to change the decision date, which potentially could have had an impact if I was a laggard at getting stuff done, which I wasn't.
My only other two planning permission applications had similar if not quite as bizarre elements.
Well seeing as that went down well here are my only other 2 planning application.
Convert half of a double garage into a room - Tree preservation man came out to see if it was going to impact any trees to which the obvious question was how? He arrived and immediately left. Why didn't he look at the plans before visiting me?
Loft conversion - Parish Council recommended that the dormer to accommodate the stairs be moved from the front to the back without actually considering what I was going to do about the stairs then. Twits. However it wasn't a problem as the stairs and therefore dormer were at the back of the house anyway so I was happy to comply as that was what was in the plans they were looking at. They couldn't tell the difference between the front and rear of the house.
And finally re the loft I requested 2 velux windows front and back. Planning permission only allowed for 1 at the front. I challenged it and the planner told me I could appeal, etc. It then dawned on me that I might not need planning permission for a velux if that was all I was doing so I asked the planning official if that was the case. He went all sheepish and said yes. So I said if I built it according to what you have allowed and 5 seconds later put in an extra velux that would be ok then? A very reluctant 'yes' was the reply. I had 2 velux windows at the front without any complaints from planners.
Since everyone has an opinion on this here is my twopenneth. All the main players are wrong in this instance.
I think the Government are very wrong in their policy regarding the boats in the channel. I think Lineker is very wrong in his 1930s Nazi comparison. I think those wanting to silence Lineker or have him sacked from the BBC are very wrong to try and do that. He may be very wrong but he has the right to say what he thinks.
A nice symmetry to start the day. Everyone is very wrong.
It's undoubtedly true that they did discuss more than was shown in the film, but I note they are reluctant to say on *what* grounds they refused it if it wasn't pure nimbyism by the dark skies obsessive and the planning barrister who confused metres and acres (and claimed it was his dyslexia so that it doesn't matter that his legal documents are incorrect).
My understanding of planning law regarding farm tracks - which may of course be entirely wrong - is that they have also placed a somewhat novel interpretation on it.
The amusing part of that dispute really is that both of them deserve to look like idiots. WODC for being a bunch of third rate NIMBY muppets, and Clarkson, for being - well, Clarkson.
And they do...
I’ve no doubt that the series presents one side of the story. And yet Clarkson is trying to farm, and is trying get a business going, and met a wall of objection, leading to things being far worse than needed. People in the countryside need jobs too, or soon it will all be rich folk who have either retired or who commute to London twice a week.
I’m really enjoying Clarkson’s Farm, and especially the planning meeting episode (no spoilers please - I’m only up to and including that episode).
The farming scenes are absolutely excellent, if a struggle to watch at times (the calving was at once gross and heartwarming).
It does, of course, only show one side of the story vis a vis locals’ attitudes to economic development, but nevertheless offers an interesting window on rural life.
I've been to too many planning meetings, I'm worried about watching that episode in case it triggers PTSD.
I once had a planning decision on the 24 December which was their deadline for producing it to extend my garage and build a porch. The decision referred to:
Our house being on a corner plot. It isn't
Our plot being both large and small
Our house being both detached and semi detached
But the best bit was I was given permission to build a Conservatory, which was nice of them, but I already had one and preferred to go with my original decision for a porch and garage extension.
It was clear there was a cut and paste job going on. You could see where the subject matter changed. I assume panic because of the deadline and maybe a Christmas party.
They told me it was ok anyway. I wasn't happy until it at least reflected some element of reality, which they did. They refused to change the decision date, which potentially could have had an impact if I was a laggard at getting stuff done, which I wasn't.
My only other two planning permission applications had similar if not quite as bizarre elements.
Well seeing as that went down well here are my only other 2 planning application.
Convert half of a double garage into a room - Tree preservation man came out to see if it was going to impact any trees to which the obvious question was how? He arrived and immediately left. Why didn't he look at the plans before visiting me?
Loft conversion - Parish Council recommended that the dormer to accommodate the stairs be moved from the front to the back without actually considering what I was going to do about the stairs then. Twits. However it wasn't a problem as the stairs and therefore dormer were at the back of the house anyway so I was happy to comply as that was what was in the plans they were looking at. They couldn't tell the difference between the front and rear of the house.
And finally re the loft I requested 2 velux windows front and back. Planning permission only allowed for 1 at the front. I challenged it and the planner told me I could appeal, etc. It then dawned on me that I might not need planning permission for a velux if that was all I was doing so I asked the planning official if that was the case. He went all sheepish and said yes. So I said if I built it according to what you have allowed and 5 seconds later put in an extra velux that would be ok then? A very reluctant 'yes' was the reply. I had 2 velux windows at the front without any complaints from planners.
Some posho on R4 (calls football "soccer" - always a bad sign) trying to make out that Lineker expressing his opinion and the BBC chair getting his job after helping Johnson get a bung from a mate are somehow equivalent - let left and right both have their scalp and move on. Have we really become so tolerant of corruption and intolerant of dissent that we can accept this kind of false equivalence? Shocking.
My uncle, a Navy man, now in his late 80’s, always used to confuse me by asking how my football was going. I don’t play football, I play rugby, I’d say. He, being a classical scholar, always referred to rugby as football and football as soccer. We sometimes get sniffy about football being called soccer (e.g. by the Americans) yet it’s use here has long, long roots, to differentiate from rugby football vs association football.
Generally rugby football or rugby union is the poshest and most played at public schools, then association football ot soccer which is mainly played at public school by those who aren't in the 1st XV or 2nd or 3rd XV for rugby football and then rugby league which is northern and generally not played at all in public schools
What would we do without your helpful insights HY?
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
It is about competence now, this. No good the Conservative party pretending to be all Dick Dastardly on this when the Pigeon evades them year in, year out.
We are nigh at 50 ways to botch asylum and the current round of 'Please just stop the boats, scrotes' lawmaking to all officialdom involved seems to have no more behind it that will actually achieve an end result as any of v the others.
The fact that Starmer went on the small boats with all of his six questions at PMQs yesterday shows that Labour is quite happy to talk about the issue. Labour may be calling this wrong, of course, but it's hard to believe this has not been focused grouped to death. The government is at the delivery stage now.
Does it disappoint you that Starmer went on competence? From what I can tell, Starmer thinks that the boats need stopping without simply opening the border.
The boats should be stopped. Of course they should.
Because it’s an insane method of crossing the channel! Not because we want to stop immigration and certainly not because we want to stop people claiming asylum here. People who got a reasonable right to should be welcomed, as in 1938 or thereabouts.
Since everyone has an opinion on this here is my twopenneth. All the main players are wrong in this instance.
I think the Government are very wrong in their policy regarding the boats in the channel. I think Lineker is very wrong in his 1930s Nazi comparison. I think those wanting to silence Lineker or have him sacked from the BBC are very wrong to try and do that. He may be very wrong but he has the right to say what he thinks.
A nice symmetry to start the day. Everyone is very wrong.
You're missing one final line to complete the circle:
The BBC are wrong to regard him as their most valued 'talent' and could use licence fee payers' money more effectively.
I make no comment on the Lineker controversy but why would anyone watch MOD when Sky and BT Sport make the programme redundant
Since everyone has an opinion on this here is my twopenneth. All the main players are wrong in this instance.
I think the Government are very wrong in their policy regarding the boats in the channel. I think Lineker is very wrong in his 1930s Nazi comparison. I think those wanting to silence Lineker or have him sacked from the BBC are very wrong to try and do that. He may be very wrong but he has the right to say what he thinks.
A nice symmetry to start the day. Everyone is very wrong.
You're missing one final line to complete the circle:
The BBC are wrong to regard him as their most valued 'talent' and could use licence fee payers' money more effectively.
I make no comment on the Lineker controversy but why would anyone watch MOD when Sky and BT Sport make the programme redundant
Indeed I have not watched MOD for decades
Err, lots of younger people can't afford either let alone both.
It's undoubtedly true that they did discuss more than was shown in the film, but I note they are reluctant to say on *what* grounds they refused it if it wasn't pure nimbyism by the dark skies obsessive and the planning barrister who confused metres and acres (and claimed it was his dyslexia so that it doesn't matter that his legal documents are incorrect).
My understanding of planning law regarding farm tracks - which may of course be entirely wrong - is that they have also placed a somewhat novel interpretation on it.
The amusing part of that dispute really is that both of them deserve to look like idiots. WODC for being a bunch of third rate NIMBY muppets, and Clarkson, for being - well, Clarkson.
And they do...
I’ve no doubt that the series presents one side of the story. And yet Clarkson is trying to farm, and is trying get a business going, and met a wall of objection, leading to things being far worse than needed. People in the countryside need jobs too, or soon it will all be rich folk who have either retired or who commute to London twice a week.
The difficult truth is that there isn't any point in large parts of the countryside. The very worst type of development that can take place is the type of incremental suburbanisation that happens by default over time... so people have no connection at all to the land, and lead urban lifestyles where they drive around long distances by car between restaurants, shops, schools, railway stations etc. There is also a whole load of weird stuff going on in remote fields far away from public views.
Regarding the countryside, it is better to have a plan to either a) develop it for housing/new communities b) use it for ecological enhancement c) protect it where it is a valued landscape d) use it for food production. But such a plan is politically impossible, it is held back by deeply entrenched conservative forces.
If you look at England - then 87% of the land falls in to this 'undeveloped' category'. The most obvious price of these 'deeply entrenched conservative forces' is massive missed opportunities to provide for the basic needs of an expanded population through housing; but also a failure to take advantage of the opportunities to build infrastructure, renewable energy, employment growth, jobs etc.
You don't think it might also be a missed opportunity to grow some food?
Because after all, it's not like there's currently a shortage of grain in the world, or water stress in many grain growing areas due to warming climates?
Yeah absolutely, that was one of my options. One issue is that not enough weight is given to the protection of the Best and Most Versatile land in planning decisions.
Though funnily enough now people seek to use arguments of protection of such to prevent use of low grade land. Hadn't seen that nimby tactic before but is getting more common. Goes like this:
I'm not against development (liar) but we need land for food security etc.
This is very low quality land that barely produces any, if at all.
...you can't trust a rating and expert opinion.
I think this is an area where the land is graded by DEFRA, so that line of argument doesn't go far.
It doesn't, but people do try it and some decision makers will buy it unless talked out of it.
It's undoubtedly true that they did discuss more than was shown in the film, but I note they are reluctant to say on *what* grounds they refused it if it wasn't pure nimbyism by the dark skies obsessive and the planning barrister who confused metres and acres (and claimed it was his dyslexia so that it doesn't matter that his legal documents are incorrect).
My understanding of planning law regarding farm tracks - which may of course be entirely wrong - is that they have also placed a somewhat novel interpretation on it.
The amusing part of that dispute really is that both of them deserve to look like idiots. WODC for being a bunch of third rate NIMBY muppets, and Clarkson, for being - well, Clarkson.
And they do...
I’ve no doubt that the series presents one side of the story. And yet Clarkson is trying to farm, and is trying get a business going, and met a wall of objection, leading to things being far worse than needed. People in the countryside need jobs too, or soon it will all be rich folk who have either retired or who commute to London twice a week.
I’m really enjoying Clarkson’s Farm, and especially the planning meeting episode (no spoilers please - I’m only up to and including that episode).
The farming scenes are absolutely excellent, if a struggle to watch at times (the calving was at once gross and heartwarming).
It does, of course, only show one side of the story vis a vis locals’ attitudes to economic development, but nevertheless offers an interesting window on rural life.
I've been to too many planning meetings, I'm worried about watching that episode in case it triggers PTSD.
I once had a planning decision on the 24 December which was their deadline for producing it to extend my garage and build a porch. The decision referred to:
Our house being on a corner plot. It isn't
Our plot being both large and small
Our house being both detached and semi detached
But the best bit was I was given permission to build a Conservatory, which was nice of them, but I already had one and preferred to go with my original decision for a porch and garage extension.
It was clear there was a cut and paste job going on. You could see where the subject matter changed. I assume panic because of the deadline and maybe a Christmas party.
They told me it was ok anyway. I wasn't happy until it at least reflected some element of reality, which they did. They refused to change the decision date, which potentially could have had an impact if I was a laggard at getting stuff done, which I wasn't.
My only other two planning permission applications had similar if not quite as bizarre elements.
Well seeing as that went down well here are my only other 2 planning application.
Convert half of a double garage into a room - Tree preservation man came out to see if it was going to impact any trees to which the obvious question was how? He arrived and immediately left. Why didn't he look at the plans before visiting me?
Loft conversion - Parish Council recommended that the dormer to accommodate the stairs be moved from the front to the back without actually considering what I was going to do about the stairs then. Twits. However it wasn't a problem as the stairs and therefore dormer were at the back of the house anyway so I was happy to comply as that was what was in the plans they were looking at. They couldn't tell the difference between the front and rear of the house.
And finally re the loft I requested 2 velux windows front and back. Planning permission only allowed for 1 at the front. I challenged it and the planner told me I could appeal, etc. It then dawned on me that I might not need planning permission for a velux if that was all I was doing so I asked the planning official if that was the case. He went all sheepish and said yes. So I said if I built it according to what you have allowed and 5 seconds later put in an extra velux that would be ok then? A very reluctant 'yes' was the reply. I had 2 velux windows at the front without any complaints from planners.
How's he going to claim the mileage if he does that?
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Because of Lineker? I doubt it. It’s not called Gary Linekers big footy show, after all. Football is the national game, Saturday (just about hanging on) the day for football, certainly for real fans who support non Premier league teams, but want to watch the premier highlights.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either
really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I despise professional football, but Lineker seems not to have gone down the route of trying to be the worst behaved scumbag possible. So compared to many of his peers, I don’t mind him.
How many affairs has he had now?
I like Clarkson and don't like Lineker. He should stick to football or the BBC should give him the boot. I avoid all.the inane chat on MOTD. Has he mentioned the millions he has had to pay the taxman plus the NI contributions... now that is worth talking about.
Did you make the same argument about Clarkson's newspaper columns where he expressed political opinions?
No as he is being paid by the Times to write such columns. Lineker should stick to football ..the BBC don't want him to express political.opinions. its meant to be unbiased...
When BBC presenter Alan Sugar expressed his political opinions about Jeremy Coryn no-one who now criticises Gary Lineker seemed to mind very much.
It's almost as though those who don't work full time for the BBC in current affairs have a right to express opinions outside of their work for the BBC.
Only when they say things that the right approves of.
Its all got a lot worse up since the advent of social media. If Lineker and others want to spout politics I don't want to have to.pay to.let them do it. Its perfectly reasonable to object to it.
What a third rate dump Oxford is, full of thieves.
Oxford has its fair share of students and alumni born with silver spoons in their mouths.
But some of its oldest colleges, including Boris Johnson’s alma mater, have told students to be less light-fingered with cutlery and crockery from its dining rooms.
Magdalen College, attended by several Conservative MPs including William Hague, Jeremy Hunt and Dominic Grieve, the former attorney-general, is the latest to warn students of dire consequences if they continue to pilfer from formal hall.
The bursar emailed students today to announce a short amnesty period. He said: “The fad for taking souvenirs from hall and other dining rooms has worsened, recent losses of crockery and cutlery from the catering department is not acceptable or sustainable. However, we are giving you the opportunity to return these items before the end of term with no blame attached.
“Please return all items to the JCR dining room in cloisters by noon on Friday 10th March. The catering team will collect these items daily at noon on Thursday and Friday.
“Following this period, any items of college property found in a student’s possession will be regarded as theft and be treated as such.”....
....Last week, it was reported that Balliol College will no longer use college crested cups or placemats for dinners after numerous students were caught attempting to steal the items.
There was a big fashion for the heavy, American style shot glasses. They got stolen at a rate.
So we introduced a deposit. 50p had no effect. £1 had no effect.
We were up to £2.50 - still no effect.
I was the one who asked about cost. It turned out, that since we ordered them in huge boxes from the manufacturer, the price per glass was less than £1.
Given that a fair number were not being stolen, I pointed out that we were running a retail business with profit in the hundreds of percent….
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
The problem with this is if they have some success in the policy, and the boats stop because people realise that they are barred from claiming asylum upon getting here. What do Labour do then - agree to continue it or stop it?
How do they get success? They won't resource the Border Agency or the Home Office or the legal system They don't have the detention facilities and can't build new ones They won't fund new detention facilities even if they manage to find a site that the locals don;t go apeshit about They can't deport to Rwanda because Rwanda won't take them They can't return most home because they don't have and won't get agreements to do so And there's the minor issue of becoming international pariahs for proposing to break international law
Its a non-policy. People very clearly want action, and this is inaction. I can see Labour actually gaining traction the longer this goes on because they actually have a workable proposal...
Part of me thinks the proposals are so out there (it might not be legal but we'll try it for you, Red Wall) that it might be counter productive. That people who really really want the boats stopped might go 'you know, this isn't realistic' and snap awake.
Then again maybe its music to their ears.
Remember that most voters don't know how most things work. They don't know the detail and won't care for some smart arse trying to school them on them. What they expect is that if ministers promise building a Ladder to Heaven that they actually build it.
I don't think that is true of most voters. But it does seem to be true of most of the swing voters who have switched to the Tories in the last decade or so.
It's undoubtedly true that they did discuss more than was shown in the film, but I note they are reluctant to say on *what* grounds they refused it if it wasn't pure nimbyism by the dark skies obsessive and the planning barrister who confused metres and acres (and claimed it was his dyslexia so that it doesn't matter that his legal documents are incorrect).
My understanding of planning law regarding farm tracks - which may of course be entirely wrong - is that they have also placed a somewhat novel interpretation on it.
The amusing part of that dispute really is that both of them deserve to look like idiots. WODC for being a bunch of third rate NIMBY muppets, and Clarkson, for being - well, Clarkson.
And they do...
I’ve no doubt that the series presents one side of the story. And yet Clarkson is trying to farm, and is trying get a business going, and met a wall of objection, leading to things being far worse than needed. People in the countryside need jobs too, or soon it will all be rich folk who have either retired or who commute to London twice a week.
I’m really enjoying Clarkson’s Farm, and especially the planning meeting episode (no spoilers please - I’m only up to and including that episode).
The farming scenes are absolutely excellent, if a struggle to watch at times (the calving was at once gross and heartwarming).
It does, of course, only show one side of the story vis a vis locals’ attitudes to economic development, but nevertheless offers an interesting window on rural life.
I've been to too many planning meetings, I'm worried about watching that episode in case it triggers PTSD.
I once had a planning decision on the 24 December which was their deadline for producing it to extend my garage and build a porch. The decision referred to:
Our house being on a corner plot. It isn't
Our plot being both large and small
Our house being both detached and semi detached
But the best bit was I was given permission to build a Conservatory, which was nice of them, but I already had one and preferred to go with my original decision for a porch and garage extension.
It was clear there was a cut and paste job going on. You could see where the subject matter changed. I assume panic because of the deadline and maybe a Christmas party.
They told me it was ok anyway. I wasn't happy until it at least reflected some element of reality, which they did. They refused to change the decision date, which potentially could have had an impact if I was a laggard at getting stuff done, which I wasn't.
My only other two planning permission applications had similar if not quite as bizarre elements.
Well seeing as that went down well here are my only other 2 planning application.
Convert half of a double garage into a room - Tree preservation man came out to see if it was going to impact any trees to which the obvious question was how? He arrived and immediately left. Why didn't he look at the plans before visiting me?
Loft conversion - Parish Council recommended that the dormer to accommodate the stairs be moved from the front to the back without actually considering what I was going to do about the stairs then. Twits. However it wasn't a problem as the stairs and therefore dormer were at the back of the house anyway so I was happy to comply as that was what was in the plans they were looking at. They couldn't tell the difference between the front and rear of the house.
And finally re the loft I requested 2 velux windows front and back. Planning permission only allowed for 1 at the front. I challenged it and the planner told me I could appeal, etc. It then dawned on me that I might not need planning permission for a velux if that was all I was doing so I asked the planning official if that was the case. He went all sheepish and said yes. So I said if I built it according to what you have allowed and 5 seconds later put in an extra velux that would be ok then? A very reluctant 'yes' was the reply. I had 2 velux windows at the front without any complaints from planners.
Kafkaesque.
Where do they dig these people up?
Most of it was obviously idiotic stuff. However I think the velux windows was a try on. They wanted to limit it and were trying to keep the fact that I could do it anyway outside of the planning application away from me.
I have only ever had 3 planning applications and all have been bonkers, however in fairness none have actually caused me any problems and all have provided lots of entertainment.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Because of Lineker? I doubt it. It’s not called Gary Linekers big footy show, after all. Football is the national game, Saturday (just about hanging on) the day for football, certainly for real fans who support non Premier league teams, but want to watch the premier highlights.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either
really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I despise professional football, but Lineker seems not to have gone down the route of trying to be the worst behaved scumbag possible. So compared to many of his peers, I don’t mind him.
How many affairs has he had now?
I like Clarkson and don't like Lineker. He should stick to football or the BBC should give him the boot. I avoid all.the inane chat on MOTD. Has he mentioned the millions he has had to pay the taxman plus the NI contributions... now that is worth talking about.
Did you make the same argument about Clarkson's newspaper columns where he expressed political opinions?
No as he is being paid by the Times to write such columns. Lineker should stick to football ..the BBC don't want him to express political.opinions. its meant to be unbiased...
The BBC don’t want him to express political opinions on air.
But it’s interesting you now think his freedom of speech should be removed. I assume you’d say the same thing it it was something you agreed with? Yeah, right
Nope noonecwho works for the BBC shoukd. They should keep.it buttoned.
Why?
Why are you removing free speech? He is a football pundit. He can say what he likes on politics. Same goes for Clarkson. Nowt to do with the BBC or you.
He works for the BBC there is a difference. If the BBC get rid of the license fee he can say what he likes. Until then he can stfu.
I like Gary Lineker.
Do you pay the BBC licence fee?
I do I have to but resent it. Let them take advertising or charge to watch. Then they can do what the fuck.they want.
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
It is about competence now, this. No good the Conservative party pretending to be all Dick Dastardly on this when the Pigeon evades them year in, year out.
We are nigh at 50 ways to botch asylum and the current round of 'Please just stop the boats, scrotes' lawmaking to all officialdom involved seems to have no more behind it that will actually achieve an end result as any of v the others.
The fact that Starmer went on the small boats with all of his six questions at PMQs yesterday shows that Labour is quite happy to talk about the issue. Labour may be calling this wrong, of course, but it's hard to believe this has not been focused grouped to death. The government is at the delivery stage now.
Does it disappoint you that Starmer went on competence? From what I can tell, Starmer thinks that the boats need stopping without simply opening the border.
The boats should be stopped. Of course they should.
Because it’s an insane method of crossing the channel! Not because we want to stop immigration and certainly not because we want to stop people claiming asylum here. People who got a reasonable right to should be welcomed, as in 1938 or thereabouts.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Because of Lineker? I doubt it. It’s not called Gary Linekers big footy show, after all. Football is the national game, Saturday (just about hanging on) the day for football, certainly for real fans who support non Premier league teams, but want to watch the premier highlights.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either
really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I despise professional football, but Lineker seems not to have gone down the route of trying to be the worst behaved scumbag possible. So compared to many of his peers, I don’t mind him.
How many affairs has he had now?
I like Clarkson and don't like Lineker. He should stick to football or the BBC should give him the boot. I avoid all.the inane chat on MOTD. Has he mentioned the millions he has had to pay the taxman plus the NI contributions... now that is worth talking about.
Did you make the same argument about Clarkson's newspaper columns where he expressed political opinions?
No as he is being paid by the Times to write such columns. Lineker should stick to football ..the BBC don't want him to express political.opinions. its meant to be unbiased...
When BBC presenter Alan Sugar expressed his political opinions about Jeremy Coryn no-one who now criticises Gary Lineker seemed to mind very much.
It's almost as though those who don't work full time for the BBC in current affairs have a right to express opinions outside of their work for the BBC.
Only when they say things that the right approves of.
Be fair. If he’d said the wrong thing on trans, the Left Witchfinders would have been after him, rather than the Right Witchfinders.
It’s an irregular verb
I enforce rules on neutrality and decency You are against free speech He/She/It is a Witchfinder
It's undoubtedly true that they did discuss more than was shown in the film, but I note they are reluctant to say on *what* grounds they refused it if it wasn't pure nimbyism by the dark skies obsessive and the planning barrister who confused metres and acres (and claimed it was his dyslexia so that it doesn't matter that his legal documents are incorrect).
My understanding of planning law regarding farm tracks - which may of course be entirely wrong - is that they have also placed a somewhat novel interpretation on it.
The amusing part of that dispute really is that both of them deserve to look like idiots. WODC for being a bunch of third rate NIMBY muppets, and Clarkson, for being - well, Clarkson.
And they do...
I’ve no doubt that the series presents one side of the story. And yet Clarkson is trying to farm, and is trying get a business going, and met a wall of objection, leading to things being far worse than needed. People in the countryside need jobs too, or soon it will all be rich folk who have either retired or who commute to London twice a week.
I’m really enjoying Clarkson’s Farm, and especially the planning meeting episode (no spoilers please - I’m only up to and including that episode).
The farming scenes are absolutely excellent, if a struggle to watch at times (the calving was at once gross and heartwarming).
It does, of course, only show one side of the story vis a vis locals’ attitudes to economic development, but nevertheless offers an interesting window on rural life.
I've been to too many planning meetings, I'm worried about watching that episode in case it triggers PTSD.
I once had a planning decision on the 24 December which was their deadline for producing it to extend my garage and build a porch. The decision referred to:
Our house being on a corner plot. It isn't
Our plot being both large and small
Our house being both detached and semi detached
But the best bit was I was given permission to build a Conservatory, which was nice of them, but I already had one and preferred to go with my original decision for a porch and garage extension.
It was clear there was a cut and paste job going on. You could see where the subject matter changed. I assume panic because of the deadline and maybe a Christmas party.
They told me it was ok anyway. I wasn't happy until it at least reflected some element of reality, which they did. They refused to change the decision date, which potentially could have had an impact if I was a laggard at getting stuff done, which I wasn't.
My only other two planning permission applications had similar if not quite as bizarre elements.
Well seeing as that went down well here are my only other 2 planning application.
Convert half of a double garage into a room - Tree preservation man came out to see if it was going to impact any trees to which the obvious question was how? He arrived and immediately left. Why didn't he look at the plans before visiting me?
Loft conversion - Parish Council recommended that the dormer to accommodate the stairs be moved from the front to the back without actually considering what I was going to do about the stairs then. Twits. However it wasn't a problem as the stairs and therefore dormer were at the back of the house anyway so I was happy to comply as that was what was in the plans they were looking at. They couldn't tell the difference between the front and rear of the house.
And finally re the loft I requested 2 velux windows front and back. Planning permission only allowed for 1 at the front. I challenged it and the planner told me I could appeal, etc. It then dawned on me that I might not need planning permission for a velux if that was all I was doing so I asked the planning official if that was the case. He went all sheepish and said yes. So I said if I built it according to what you have allowed and 5 seconds later put in an extra velux that would be ok then? A very reluctant 'yes' was the reply. I had 2 velux windows at the front without any complaints from planners.
Kafkaesque.
Where do they dig these people up?
I've done all sorts to this house and outbuildings (Grade 2 listed) without planning permission, etc. I'm never going to sell it so I don't give a fuck. However, we have a stream that crosses the drive and for about five months of the year it turned the drive into a WRC special stage. I spent years trying to get permission to build a culvert and bridge but you can see it from the road so I couldn't stealth mode it like all of my other modifications. This went on for ages with engineer's reports, appeals, etc. Eventually, I just gave somebody two grand cash and all obstacles melted away.
It's undoubtedly true that they did discuss more than was shown in the film, but I note they are reluctant to say on *what* grounds they refused it if it wasn't pure nimbyism by the dark skies obsessive and the planning barrister who confused metres and acres (and claimed it was his dyslexia so that it doesn't matter that his legal documents are incorrect).
My understanding of planning law regarding farm tracks - which may of course be entirely wrong - is that they have also placed a somewhat novel interpretation on it.
The amusing part of that dispute really is that both of them deserve to look like idiots. WODC for being a bunch of third rate NIMBY muppets, and Clarkson, for being - well, Clarkson.
And they do...
I’ve no doubt that the series presents one side of the story. And yet Clarkson is trying to farm, and is trying get a business going, and met a wall of objection, leading to things being far worse than needed. People in the countryside need jobs too, or soon it will all be rich folk who have either retired or who commute to London twice a week.
I’m really enjoying Clarkson’s Farm, and especially the planning meeting episode (no spoilers please - I’m only up to and including that episode).
The farming scenes are absolutely excellent, if a struggle to watch at times (the calving was at once gross and heartwarming).
It does, of course, only show one side of the story vis a vis locals’ attitudes to economic development, but nevertheless offers an interesting window on rural life.
I've been to too many planning meetings, I'm worried about watching that episode in case it triggers PTSD.
I once had a planning decision on the 24 December which was their deadline for producing it to extend my garage and build a porch. The decision referred to:
Our house being on a corner plot. It isn't
Our plot being both large and small
Our house being both detached and semi detached
But the best bit was I was given permission to build a Conservatory, which was nice of them, but I already had one and preferred to go with my original decision for a porch and garage extension.
It was clear there was a cut and paste job going on. You could see where the subject matter changed. I assume panic because of the deadline and maybe a Christmas party.
They told me it was ok anyway. I wasn't happy until it at least reflected some element of reality, which they did. They refused to change the decision date, which potentially could have had an impact if I was a laggard at getting stuff done, which I wasn't.
My only other two planning permission applications had similar if not quite as bizarre elements.
Well seeing as that went down well here are my only other 2 planning application.
Convert half of a double garage into a room - Tree preservation man came out to see if it was going to impact any trees to which the obvious question was how? He arrived and immediately left. Why didn't he look at the plans before visiting me?
Loft conversion - Parish Council recommended that the dormer to accommodate the stairs be moved from the front to the back without actually considering what I was going to do about the stairs then. Twits. However it wasn't a problem as the stairs and therefore dormer were at the back of the house anyway so I was happy to comply as that was what was in the plans they were looking at. They couldn't tell the difference between the front and rear of the house.
And finally re the loft I requested 2 velux windows front and back. Planning permission only allowed for 1 at the front. I challenged it and the planner told me I could appeal, etc. It then dawned on me that I might not need planning permission for a velux if that was all I was doing so I asked the planning official if that was the case. He went all sheepish and said yes. So I said if I built it according to what you have allowed and 5 seconds later put in an extra velux that would be ok then? A very reluctant 'yes' was the reply. I had 2 velux windows at the front without any complaints from planners.
How's he going to claim the mileage if he does that?
Since everyone has an opinion on this here is my twopenneth. All the main players are wrong in this instance.
I think the Government are very wrong in their policy regarding the boats in the channel. I think Lineker is very wrong in his 1930s Nazi comparison. I think those wanting to silence Lineker or have him sacked from the BBC are very wrong to try and do that. He may be very wrong but he has the right to say what he thinks.
A nice symmetry to start the day. Everyone is very wrong.
Replace all the "verys", bar one, with "a bit" and I concur.
It's undoubtedly true that they did discuss more than was shown in the film, but I note they are reluctant to say on *what* grounds they refused it if it wasn't pure nimbyism by the dark skies obsessive and the planning barrister who confused metres and acres (and claimed it was his dyslexia so that it doesn't matter that his legal documents are incorrect).
My understanding of planning law regarding farm tracks - which may of course be entirely wrong - is that they have also placed a somewhat novel interpretation on it.
The amusing part of that dispute really is that both of them deserve to look like idiots. WODC for being a bunch of third rate NIMBY muppets, and Clarkson, for being - well, Clarkson.
And they do...
I’ve no doubt that the series presents one side of the story. And yet Clarkson is trying to farm, and is trying get a business going, and met a wall of objection, leading to things being far worse than needed. People in the countryside need jobs too, or soon it will all be rich folk who have either retired or who commute to London twice a week.
I’m really enjoying Clarkson’s Farm, and especially the planning meeting episode (no spoilers please - I’m only up to and including that episode).
The farming scenes are absolutely excellent, if a struggle to watch at times (the calving was at once gross and heartwarming).
It does, of course, only show one side of the story vis a vis locals’ attitudes to economic development, but nevertheless offers an interesting window on rural life.
I've been to too many planning meetings, I'm worried about watching that episode in case it triggers PTSD.
I once had a planning decision on the 24 December which was their deadline for producing it to extend my garage and build a porch. The decision referred to:
Our house being on a corner plot. It isn't
Our plot being both large and small
Our house being both detached and semi detached
But the best bit was I was given permission to build a Conservatory, which was nice of them, but I already had one and preferred to go with my original decision for a porch and garage extension.
It was clear there was a cut and paste job going on. You could see where the subject matter changed. I assume panic because of the deadline and maybe a Christmas party.
They told me it was ok anyway. I wasn't happy until it at least reflected some element of reality, which they did. They refused to change the decision date, which potentially could have had an impact if I was a laggard at getting stuff done, which I wasn't.
My only other two planning permission applications had similar if not quite as bizarre elements.
Well seeing as that went down well here are my only other 2 planning application.
Convert half of a double garage into a room - Tree preservation man came out to see if it was going to impact any trees to which the obvious question was how? He arrived and immediately left. Why didn't he look at the plans before visiting me?
Loft conversion - Parish Council recommended that the dormer to accommodate the stairs be moved from the front to the back without actually considering what I was going to do about the stairs then. Twits. However it wasn't a problem as the stairs and therefore dormer were at the back of the house anyway so I was happy to comply as that was what was in the plans they were looking at. They couldn't tell the difference between the front and rear of the house.
And finally re the loft I requested 2 velux windows front and back. Planning permission only allowed for 1 at the front. I challenged it and the planner told me I could appeal, etc. It then dawned on me that I might not need planning permission for a velux if that was all I was doing so I asked the planning official if that was the case. He went all sheepish and said yes. So I said if I built it according to what you have allowed and 5 seconds later put in an extra velux that would be ok then? A very reluctant 'yes' was the reply. I had 2 velux windows at the front without any complaints from planners.
Kafkaesque.
Where do they dig these people up?
Most do their best in overworked, underpaid conditions in a job where people often casually accuse them of gross corruption trying to sort things out between ever changing and stupidly complex local and national planning rules. Frankly I'm surprised more don't become bitter petty rulemasters.
It's undoubtedly true that they did discuss more than was shown in the film, but I note they are reluctant to say on *what* grounds they refused it if it wasn't pure nimbyism by the dark skies obsessive and the planning barrister who confused metres and acres (and claimed it was his dyslexia so that it doesn't matter that his legal documents are incorrect).
My understanding of planning law regarding farm tracks - which may of course be entirely wrong - is that they have also placed a somewhat novel interpretation on it.
The amusing part of that dispute really is that both of them deserve to look like idiots. WODC for being a bunch of third rate NIMBY muppets, and Clarkson, for being - well, Clarkson.
And they do...
I’ve no doubt that the series presents one side of the story. And yet Clarkson is trying to farm, and is trying get a business going, and met a wall of objection, leading to things being far worse than needed. People in the countryside need jobs too, or soon it will all be rich folk who have either retired or who commute to London twice a week.
I’m really enjoying Clarkson’s Farm, and especially the planning meeting episode (no spoilers please - I’m only up to and including that episode).
The farming scenes are absolutely excellent, if a struggle to watch at times (the calving was at once gross and heartwarming).
It does, of course, only show one side of the story vis a vis locals’ attitudes to economic development, but nevertheless offers an interesting window on rural life.
I've been to too many planning meetings, I'm worried about watching that episode in case it triggers PTSD.
I once had a planning decision on the 24 December which was their deadline for producing it to extend my garage and build a porch. The decision referred to:
Our house being on a corner plot. It isn't
Our plot being both large and small
Our house being both detached and semi detached
But the best bit was I was given permission to build a Conservatory, which was nice of them, but I already had one and preferred to go with my original decision for a porch and garage extension.
It was clear there was a cut and paste job going on. You could see where the subject matter changed. I assume panic because of the deadline and maybe a Christmas party.
They told me it was ok anyway. I wasn't happy until it at least reflected some element of reality, which they did. They refused to change the decision date, which potentially could have had an impact if I was a laggard at getting stuff done, which I wasn't.
My only other two planning permission applications had similar if not quite as bizarre elements.
Well seeing as that went down well here are my only other 2 planning application.
Convert half of a double garage into a room - Tree preservation man came out to see if it was going to impact any trees to which the obvious question was how? He arrived and immediately left. Why didn't he look at the plans before visiting me?
Loft conversion - Parish Council recommended that the dormer to accommodate the stairs be moved from the front to the back without actually considering what I was going to do about the stairs then. Twits. However it wasn't a problem as the stairs and therefore dormer were at the back of the house anyway so I was happy to comply as that was what was in the plans they were looking at. They couldn't tell the difference between the front and rear of the house.
And finally re the loft I requested 2 velux windows front and back. Planning permission only allowed for 1 at the front. I challenged it and the planner told me I could appeal, etc. It then dawned on me that I might not need planning permission for a velux if that was all I was doing so I asked the planning official if that was the case. He went all sheepish and said yes. So I said if I built it according to what you have allowed and 5 seconds later put in an extra velux that would be ok then? A very reluctant 'yes' was the reply. I had 2 velux windows at the front without any complaints from planners.
How's he going to claim the mileage if he does that?
Matthew Parris has written again today on the lines he has done before. His (depressing) basic thesis seems to be as soundly based as anything I have come across and I have never met with a decent refutation.
Matthew Parris has written again today on the lines he has done before. His (depressing) basic thesis seems to be as soundly based as anything I have come across and I have never met with a decent refutation.
Matthew Parris has written again today on the lines he has done before. His (depressing) basic thesis seems to be as soundly based as anything I have come across and I have never met with a decent refutation.
And yet countries like Switzerland and Netherlands manage the same problem much better than us with efficient administration and targeted laws that not only work but are actually legal too. How quaint.
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
It is about competence now, this. No good the Conservative party pretending to be all Dick Dastardly on this when the Pigeon evades them year in, year out.
We are nigh at 50 ways to botch asylum and the current round of 'Please just stop the boats, scrotes' lawmaking to all officialdom involved seems to have no more behind it that will actually achieve an end result as any of v the others.
The fact that Starmer went on the small boats with all of his six questions at PMQs yesterday shows that Labour is quite happy to talk about the issue. Labour may be calling this wrong, of course, but it's hard to believe this has not been focused grouped to death. The government is at the delivery stage now.
Does it disappoint you that Starmer went on competence? From what I can tell, Starmer thinks that the boats need stopping without simply opening the border.
The boats should be stopped. Of course they should.
Because it’s an insane method of crossing the channel! Not because we want to stop immigration and certainly not because we want to stop people claiming asylum here. People who got a reasonable right to should be welcomed, as in 1938 or thereabouts.
Yep - that's pretty much how I see it.
Despite all the sound and fury I have not heard any ideas how to stop the boats from Labour or anyone else
It seems labour's idea is to arrest all the people smugglers and have safe routes in France/Calais for asylum seekers to be processed
The safe routes will only attract tens of thousands more and overwhelm the system while the boats keep on coming
Sunak's tough love approach is stark but I think this is only part of his strategy when I expect he sees close cooperation with Macron as the key and hopefully tomorrow's talks will be successful
Apparently the Rwanda scheme is unlimited and not restricted to 200
The other issue that will be challenging for labour is the annual limit on immigration to be announced shortly
There are no easy solutions but stopping the boats is a must to prevent drowning and surely we must all agree the urgency in this issue
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
The problem with this is if they have some success in the policy, and the boats stop because people realise that they are barred from claiming asylum upon getting here. What do Labour do then - agree to continue it or stop it?
How do they get success? They won't resource the Border Agency or the Home Office or the legal system They don't have the detention facilities and can't build new ones They won't fund new detention facilities even if they manage to find a site that the locals don;t go apeshit about They can't deport to Rwanda because Rwanda won't take them They can't return most home because they don't have and won't get agreements to do so And there's the minor issue of becoming international pariahs for proposing to break international law
Its a non-policy. People very clearly want action, and this is inaction. I can see Labour actually gaining traction the longer this goes on because they actually have a workable proposal...
Part of me thinks the proposals are so out there (it might not be legal but we'll try it for you, Red Wall) that it might be counter productive. That people who really really want the boats stopped might go 'you know, this isn't realistic' and snap awake.
Then again maybe its music to their ears.
Remember that most voters don't know how most things work. They don't know the detail and won't care for some smart arse trying to school them on them. What they expect is that if ministers promise building a Ladder to Heaven that they actually build it.
I don't think that is true of most voters. But it does seem to be true of most of the swing voters who have switched to the Tories in the last decade or so.
It is true of most voters. How many could describe in detail the current asylum processes? Or the international laws we have to respect?
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
It is about competence now, this. No good the Conservative party pretending to be all Dick Dastardly on this when the Pigeon evades them year in, year out.
We are nigh at 50 ways to botch asylum and the current round of 'Please just stop the boats, scrotes' lawmaking to all officialdom involved seems to have no more behind it that will actually achieve an end result as any of v the others.
The fact that Starmer went on the small boats with all of his six questions at PMQs yesterday shows that Labour is quite happy to talk about the issue. Labour may be calling this wrong, of course, but it's hard to believe this has not been focused grouped to death. The government is at the delivery stage now.
Does it disappoint you that Starmer went on competence? From what I can tell, Starmer thinks that the boats need stopping without simply opening the border.
The boats should be stopped. Of course they should.
Because it’s an insane method of crossing the channel! Not because we want to stop immigration and certainly not because we want to stop people claiming asylum here. People who got a reasonable right to should be welcomed, as in 1938 or thereabouts.
Yep - that's pretty much how I see it.
Despite all the sound and fury I have not heard any ideas how to stop the boats from Labour or anyone else
It seems labour's idea is to arrest all the people smugglers and have safe routes in France/Calais for asylum seekers to be processed
The safe routes will only attract tens of thousands more and overwhelm the system while the boats keep on coming
Sunak's tough love approach is stark but I think this is only part of his strategy when I expect he sees close cooperation with Macron as the key and hopefully tomorrow's talks will be successful
Apparently the Rwanda scheme is unlimited and not restricted to 200
The other issue that will be challenging for labour is the annual limit on immigration to be announced shortly
There are no easy solutions but stopping the boats is a must to prevent drowning and surely we must all agree the urgency in this issue
Every day - there are no other answers so we must do something illegal that wont work but will damage trust in our courts.
Every day - several pb reply with other answers that are already working effectively in other countries.
It's undoubtedly true that they did discuss more than was shown in the film, but I note they are reluctant to say on *what* grounds they refused it if it wasn't pure nimbyism by the dark skies obsessive and the planning barrister who confused metres and acres (and claimed it was his dyslexia so that it doesn't matter that his legal documents are incorrect).
My understanding of planning law regarding farm tracks - which may of course be entirely wrong - is that they have also placed a somewhat novel interpretation on it.
The amusing part of that dispute really is that both of them deserve to look like idiots. WODC for being a bunch of third rate NIMBY muppets, and Clarkson, for being - well, Clarkson.
And they do...
I’ve no doubt that the series presents one side of the story. And yet Clarkson is trying to farm, and is trying get a business going, and met a wall of objection, leading to things being far worse than needed. People in the countryside need jobs too, or soon it will all be rich folk who have either retired or who commute to London twice a week.
I’m really enjoying Clarkson’s Farm, and especially the planning meeting episode (no spoilers please - I’m only up to and including that episode).
The farming scenes are absolutely excellent, if a struggle to watch at times (the calving was at once gross and heartwarming).
It does, of course, only show one side of the story vis a vis locals’ attitudes to economic development, but nevertheless offers an interesting window on rural life.
I've been to too many planning meetings, I'm worried about watching that episode in case it triggers PTSD.
I once had a planning decision on the 24 December which was their deadline for producing it to extend my garage and build a porch. The decision referred to:
Our house being on a corner plot. It isn't
Our plot being both large and small
Our house being both detached and semi detached
But the best bit was I was given permission to build a Conservatory, which was nice of them, but I already had one and preferred to go with my original decision for a porch and garage extension.
It was clear there was a cut and paste job going on. You could see where the subject matter changed. I assume panic because of the deadline and maybe a Christmas party.
They told me it was ok anyway. I wasn't happy until it at least reflected some element of reality, which they did. They refused to change the decision date, which potentially could have had an impact if I was a laggard at getting stuff done, which I wasn't.
My only other two planning permission applications had similar if not quite as bizarre elements.
Well seeing as that went down well here are my only other 2 planning application.
Convert half of a double garage into a room - Tree preservation man came out to see if it was going to impact any trees to which the obvious question was how? He arrived and immediately left. Why didn't he look at the plans before visiting me?
Loft conversion - Parish Council recommended that the dormer to accommodate the stairs be moved from the front to the back without actually considering what I was going to do about the stairs then. Twits. However it wasn't a problem as the stairs and therefore dormer were at the back of the house anyway so I was happy to comply as that was what was in the plans they were looking at. They couldn't tell the difference between the front and rear of the house.
And finally re the loft I requested 2 velux windows front and back. Planning permission only allowed for 1 at the front. I challenged it and the planner told me I could appeal, etc. It then dawned on me that I might not need planning permission for a velux if that was all I was doing so I asked the planning official if that was the case. He went all sheepish and said yes. So I said if I built it according to what you have allowed and 5 seconds later put in an extra velux that would be ok then? A very reluctant 'yes' was the reply. I had 2 velux windows at the front without any complaints from planners.
Kafkaesque.
Where do they dig these people up?
My sister had a design for an extension turned down as the style of roof she wanted was not seen in the local area.
There are at least five in the first 100 yards along the road.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Because of Lineker? I doubt it. It’s not called Gary Linekers big footy show, after all. Football is the national game, Saturday (just about hanging on) the day for football, certainly for real fans who support non Premier league teams, but want to watch the premier highlights.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either
really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I despise professional football, but Lineker seems not to have gone down the route of trying to be the worst behaved scumbag possible. So compared to many of his peers, I don’t mind him.
How many affairs has he had now?
I like Clarkson and don't like Lineker. He should stick to football or the BBC should give him the boot. I avoid all.the inane chat on MOTD. Has he mentioned the millions he has had to pay the taxman plus the NI contributions... now that is worth talking about.
Did you make the same argument about Clarkson's newspaper columns where he expressed political opinions?
No as he is being paid by the Times to write such columns. Lineker should stick to football ..the BBC don't want him to express political.opinions. its meant to be unbiased...
When BBC presenter Alan Sugar expressed his political opinions about Jeremy Coryn no-one who now criticises Gary Lineker seemed to mind very much.
It's almost as though those who don't work full time for the BBC in current affairs have a right to express opinions outside of their work for the BBC.
Only when they say things that the right approves of.
Its all got a lot worse up since the advent of social media. If Lineker and others want to spout politics I don't want to have to.pay to.let them do it. Its perfectly reasonable to object to it.
You are not paying to let them do it. He is doing it in his own time.
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
The problem with this is if they have some success in the policy, and the boats stop because people realise that they are barred from claiming asylum upon getting here. What do Labour do then - agree to continue it or stop it?
How do they get success? They won't resource the Border Agency or the Home Office or the legal system They don't have the detention facilities and can't build new ones They won't fund new detention facilities even if they manage to find a site that the locals don;t go apeshit about They can't deport to Rwanda because Rwanda won't take them They can't return most home because they don't have and won't get agreements to do so And there's the minor issue of becoming international pariahs for proposing to break international law
Its a non-policy. People very clearly want action, and this is inaction. I can see Labour actually gaining traction the longer this goes on because they actually have a workable proposal...
Part of me thinks the proposals are so out there (it might not be legal but we'll try it for you, Red Wall) that it might be counter productive. That people who really really want the boats stopped might go 'you know, this isn't realistic' and snap awake.
Then again maybe its music to their ears.
Remember that most voters don't know how most things work. They don't know the detail and won't care for some smart arse trying to school them on them. What they expect is that if ministers promise building a Ladder to Heaven that they actually build it.
I don't think that is true of most voters. But it does seem to be true of most of the swing voters who have switched to the Tories in the last decade or so.
It is true of most voters. How many could describe in detail the current asylum processes? Or the international laws we have to respect?
A higher proportion than inside the cabinet for sure.....
Matthew Parris has written again today on the lines he has done before. His (depressing) basic thesis seems to be as soundly based as anything I have come across and I have never met with a decent refutation.
The UK government already has safe legal routes open for refugees - I know this as a local community resettlement group I am part of welcomed a family fleeing genocide to the UK on Tuesday evening. They flew into Heathrow. The problem is that the numbers taken in through this route are so low. If the government were to go down the Rwanda route combined with a significant expansion of existing legal resettlement schemes they would get more of a hearing from people like me. Right now it feels like they simply want us to shirk our responsibilities while being unnecessarily cruel to throw red meat to those voters who wouldn't let in refugees under any circumstances.
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
It is about competence now, this. No good the Conservative party pretending to be all Dick Dastardly on this when the Pigeon evades them year in, year out.
We are nigh at 50 ways to botch asylum and the current round of 'Please just stop the boats, scrotes' lawmaking to all officialdom involved seems to have no more behind it that will actually achieve an end result as any of v the others.
The fact that Starmer went on the small boats with all of his six questions at PMQs yesterday shows that Labour is quite happy to talk about the issue. Labour may be calling this wrong, of course, but it's hard to believe this has not been focused grouped to death. The government is at the delivery stage now.
Does it disappoint you that Starmer went on competence? From what I can tell, Starmer thinks that the boats need stopping without simply opening the border.
The boats should be stopped. Of course they should.
Because it’s an insane method of crossing the channel! Not because we want to stop immigration and certainly not because we want to stop people claiming asylum here. People who got a reasonable right to should be welcomed, as in 1938 or thereabouts.
Yep - that's pretty much how I see it.
Despite all the sound and fury I have not heard any ideas how to stop the boats from Labour or anyone else
It seems labour's idea is to arrest all the people smugglers and have safe routes in France/Calais for asylum seekers to be processed
The safe routes will only attract tens of thousands more and overwhelm the system while the boats keep on coming
Sunak's tough love approach is stark but I think this is only part of his strategy when I expect he sees close cooperation with Macron as the key and hopefully tomorrow's talks will be successful
Apparently the Rwanda scheme is unlimited and not restricted to 200
The other issue that will be challenging for labour is the annual limit on immigration to be announced shortly
There are no easy solutions but stopping the boats is a must to prevent drowning and surely we must all agree the urgency in this issue
Every day - there are no other answers so we must do something illegal that wont work but will damage trust in our courts.
Every day - several pb reply with other answers that are already working effectively in other countries.
Can you explain which other countries have the same issue with boats other than Italy and what is your answer
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
It is about competence now, this. No good the Conservative party pretending to be all Dick Dastardly on this when the Pigeon evades them year in, year out.
We are nigh at 50 ways to botch asylum and the current round of 'Please just stop the boats, scrotes' lawmaking to all officialdom involved seems to have no more behind it that will actually achieve an end result as any of v the others.
The fact that Starmer went on the small boats with all of his six questions at PMQs yesterday shows that Labour is quite happy to talk about the issue. Labour may be calling this wrong, of course, but it's hard to believe this has not been focused grouped to death. The government is at the delivery stage now.
Does it disappoint you that Starmer went on competence? From what I can tell, Starmer thinks that the boats need stopping without simply opening the border.
The boats should be stopped. Of course they should.
Because it’s an insane method of crossing the channel! Not because we want to stop immigration and certainly not because we want to stop people claiming asylum here. People who got a reasonable right to should be welcomed, as in 1938 or thereabouts.
It may have started the last time the UK and France co-operated on the issue to a significant extent. The UK paid for fencing to block off the Channel Tunnel around Calais and its camps, which diverted the refugees to the boats. Went from 764 in 2018 to 45756 now.
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
It is about competence now, this. No good the Conservative party pretending to be all Dick Dastardly on this when the Pigeon evades them year in, year out.
We are nigh at 50 ways to botch asylum and the current round of 'Please just stop the boats, scrotes' lawmaking to all officialdom involved seems to have no more behind it that will actually achieve an end result as any of v the others.
The fact that Starmer went on the small boats with all of his six questions at PMQs yesterday shows that Labour is quite happy to talk about the issue. Labour may be calling this wrong, of course, but it's hard to believe this has not been focused grouped to death. The government is at the delivery stage now.
Does it disappoint you that Starmer went on competence? From what I can tell, Starmer thinks that the boats need stopping without simply opening the border.
The boats should be stopped. Of course they should.
Because it’s an insane method of crossing the channel! Not because we want to stop immigration and certainly not because we want to stop people claiming asylum here. People who got a reasonable right to should be welcomed, as in 1938 or thereabouts.
Yep - that's pretty much how I see it.
Despite all the sound and fury I have not heard any ideas how to stop the boats from Labour or anyone else
It seems labour's idea is to arrest all the people smugglers and have safe routes in France/Calais for asylum seekers to be processed
The safe routes will only attract tens of thousands more and overwhelm the system while the boats keep on coming
Sunak's tough love approach is stark but I think this is only part of his strategy when I expect he sees close cooperation with Macron as the key and hopefully tomorrow's talks will be successful
Apparently the Rwanda scheme is unlimited and not restricted to 200
The other issue that will be challenging for labour is the annual limit on immigration to be announced shortly
There are no easy solutions but stopping the boats is a must to prevent drowning and surely we must all agree the urgency in this issue
Picking this apart: 1 The latest Tory plan does not work at all. See my previous list posts. No aspect of it is deliverable and they know this 2 Without safe routes you will get your tens of thousands coming on boats. They are coming whether you like it or not. Question is how we route them here and what we then do with them 3 Why can't we arrest the people smugglers? So many of them are in the UK - jail them! Why can't we raid warehouses full of dinghies being used by the people smugglers - impound them! These are basics of policing that we simply can't do. The Labour proposal is to nick and impound - and you say that won't work? Take away most of the smugglers and most of the boats and that puts a massive dent in their capability doesn't it? 4 We say the Rwanda scheme is unlimited. Rwanda says 200. It is fabulously arrogant for people here to keep telling the Rwandan government they are wrong about what the Rwandan government is prepared to do.
Quite rightly you highlight the human tragedy of this - people drown. So why cannot we engage in sensible and practical discussions to end it? The Tory law last year which you support failed on every level. As did the one before that. The latest bill is written in crayon to enrage morons, and still you provide it succour - why?
Matthew Parris has written again today on the lines he has done before. His (depressing) basic thesis seems to be as soundly based as anything I have come across and I have never met with a decent refutation.
Matthew Parris has written again today on the lines he has done before. His (depressing) basic thesis seems to be as soundly based as anything I have come across and I have never met with a decent refutation.
And yet countries like Switzerland and Netherlands manage the same problem much better than us with efficient administration and targeted laws that not only work but are actually legal too. How quaint.
You stopped at just the point SKS, Rishi and Farage wanted to be let into the secret of how this is done and why everyone doesn't do it.
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
It is about competence now, this. No good the Conservative party pretending to be all Dick Dastardly on this when the Pigeon evades them year in, year out.
We are nigh at 50 ways to botch asylum and the current round of 'Please just stop the boats, scrotes' lawmaking to all officialdom involved seems to have no more behind it that will actually achieve an end result as any of v the others.
The fact that Starmer went on the small boats with all of his six questions at PMQs yesterday shows that Labour is quite happy to talk about the issue. Labour may be calling this wrong, of course, but it's hard to believe this has not been focused grouped to death. The government is at the delivery stage now.
Does it disappoint you that Starmer went on competence? From what I can tell, Starmer thinks that the boats need stopping without simply opening the border.
The boats should be stopped. Of course they should.
Because it’s an insane method of crossing the channel! Not because we want to stop immigration and certainly not because we want to stop people claiming asylum here. People who got a reasonable right to should be welcomed, as in 1938 or thereabouts.
Yep - that's pretty much how I see it.
Despite all the sound and fury I have not heard any ideas how to stop the boats from Labour or anyone else
It seems labour's idea is to arrest all the people smugglers and have safe routes in France/Calais for asylum seekers to be processed
The safe routes will only attract tens of thousands more and overwhelm the system while the boats keep on coming
Sunak's tough love approach is stark but I think this is only part of his strategy when I expect he sees close cooperation with Macron as the key and hopefully tomorrow's talks will be successful
Apparently the Rwanda scheme is unlimited and not restricted to 200
The other issue that will be challenging for labour is the annual limit on immigration to be announced shortly
There are no easy solutions but stopping the boats is a must to prevent drowning and surely we must all agree the urgency in this issue
Picking this apart: 1 The latest Tory plan does not work at all. See my previous list posts. No aspect of it is deliverable and they know this 2 Without safe routes you will get your tens of thousands coming on boats. They are coming whether you like it or not. Question is how we route them here and what we then do with them 3 Why can't we arrest the people smugglers? So many of them are in the UK - jail them! Why can't we raid warehouses full of dinghies being used by the people smugglers - impound them! These are basics of policing that we simply can't do. The Labour proposal is to nick and impound - and you say that won't work? Take away most of the smugglers and most of the boats and that puts a massive dent in their capability doesn't it? 4 We say the Rwanda scheme is unlimited. Rwanda says 200. It is fabulously arrogant for people here to keep telling the Rwandan government they are wrong about what the Rwandan government is prepared to do.
Quite rightly you highlight the human tragedy of this - people drown. So why cannot we engage in sensible and practical discussions to end it? The Tory law last year which you support failed on every level. As did the one before that. The latest bill is written in crayon to enrage morons, and still you provide it succour - why?
So what is the Labour plan? How many asylum seekers would it bring each year?
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
It is about competence now, this. No good the Conservative party pretending to be all Dick Dastardly on this when the Pigeon evades them year in, year out.
We are nigh at 50 ways to botch asylum and the current round of 'Please just stop the boats, scrotes' lawmaking to all officialdom involved seems to have no more behind it that will actually achieve an end result as any of v the others.
The fact that Starmer went on the small boats with all of his six questions at PMQs yesterday shows that Labour is quite happy to talk about the issue. Labour may be calling this wrong, of course, but it's hard to believe this has not been focused grouped to death. The government is at the delivery stage now.
Does it disappoint you that Starmer went on competence? From what I can tell, Starmer thinks that the boats need stopping without simply opening the border.
Neither Sunak nor Starmer are transparent on the issues, but Starmer implies Labour would process asylum cases while the Conservatives have effectively stopped doing so.
Personally I think the Conservative approach ineffective, very costly and ultimately unsustainable. Nevertheless Sunak can keep it going until at least the next election and it is a different policy.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Because of Lineker? I doubt it. It’s not called Gary Linekers big footy show, after all. Football is the national game, Saturday (just about hanging on) the day for football, certainly for real fans who support non Premier league teams, but want to watch the premier highlights.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either
really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I despise professional football, but Lineker seems not to have gone down the route of trying to be the worst behaved scumbag possible. So compared to many of his peers, I don’t mind him.
How many affairs has he had now?
I like Clarkson and don't like Lineker. He should stick to football or the BBC should give him the boot. I avoid all.the inane chat on MOTD. Has he mentioned the millions he has had to pay the taxman plus the NI contributions... now that is worth talking about.
Did you make the same argument about Clarkson's newspaper columns where he expressed political opinions?
No as he is being paid by the Times to write such columns. Lineker should stick to football ..the BBC don't want him to express political.opinions. its meant to be unbiased...
The BBC don’t want him to express political opinions on air.
But it’s interesting you now think his freedom of speech should be removed. I assume you’d say the same thing it it was something you agreed with? Yeah, right
Nope noonecwho works for the BBC shoukd. They should keep.it buttoned.
Why?
Why are you removing free speech? He is a football pundit. He can say what he likes on politics. Same goes for Clarkson. Nowt to do with the BBC or you.
He works for the BBC there is a difference. If the BBC get rid of the license fee he can say what he likes. Until then he can stfu.
So did Clarkson and he wrote for the Sun and the Times at that time, so what.
What about everyone else who works for the BBC as pundits, comedians, etc and make political comments. Are you going to fire every comedian, every talk show host?
You would be at home in the USSR.
There are quite a lot of comedians on the BBC who should be fired.
Not for that reason, just because they're a bit rubbish.
Over supply the issue. Very few trained in the classic arts such as punning.
This place can be one of the single best sources of punning.
On the substance of what Lineker said, even though I get where he was coming from on the dehumanising and nationalist language the government uses, it’s wrong to reference Nazi Germany because we know how that ended and we know that’s not how it will end here. For that reason, it’s wrong to draw any kind of overall equivalence even when there are some small parallels in specific areas. More generally, if you haven’t read this, you should:
I think that's really well-put, Southam. I feel the same when people compare all kinds of people they don't like to Hitler. Ultimately it trivialises what the Nazis did if every authoritarian is seen as much the same, and it should be possible to say that without being seen as a sympathiser with the authoritarians.
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
It is about competence now, this. No good the Conservative party pretending to be all Dick Dastardly on this when the Pigeon evades them year in, year out.
We are nigh at 50 ways to botch asylum and the current round of 'Please just stop the boats, scrotes' lawmaking to all officialdom involved seems to have no more behind it that will actually achieve an end result as any of v the others.
The fact that Starmer went on the small boats with all of his six questions at PMQs yesterday shows that Labour is quite happy to talk about the issue. Labour may be calling this wrong, of course, but it's hard to believe this has not been focused grouped to death. The government is at the delivery stage now.
Does it disappoint you that Starmer went on competence? From what I can tell, Starmer thinks that the boats need stopping without simply opening the border.
The boats should be stopped. Of course they should.
Because it’s an insane method of crossing the channel! Not because we want to stop immigration and certainly not because we want to stop people claiming asylum here. People who got a reasonable right to should be welcomed, as in 1938 or thereabouts.
Yep - that's pretty much how I see it.
Despite all the sound and fury I have not heard any ideas how to stop the boats from Labour or anyone else
It seems labour's idea is to arrest all the people smugglers and have safe routes in France/Calais for asylum seekers to be processed
The safe routes will only attract tens of thousands more and overwhelm the system while the boats keep on coming
Sunak's tough love approach is stark but I think this is only part of his strategy when I expect he sees close cooperation with Macron as the key and hopefully tomorrow's talks will be successful
Apparently the Rwanda scheme is unlimited and not restricted to 200
The other issue that will be challenging for labour is the annual limit on immigration to be announced shortly
There are no easy solutions but stopping the boats is a must to prevent drowning and surely we must all agree the urgency in this issue
Every day - there are no other answers so we must do something illegal that wont work but will damage trust in our courts.
Every day - several pb reply with other answers that are already working effectively in other countries.
Can you explain which other countries have the same issue with boats other than Italy and what is your answer
Again, because I do think you have been watching too much GBeebies or something: 1 We could arrest and jail the people smugglers as most are in the UK. Why don't we? 2 We could impound and destroy the warehouses of dinghies being used. Why don't we? 3 We could co-operate with the French - whilst a summit is to happen its the first in years. Why do we think shouting abuse at the French was better than diplomacy? 4 We could open up safe routes. Allow the Afghans we betrayed and abandoned to get here safely. Why are we such massive shits to our former allies?
We could do HUGE things. Stop the smugglers. Remove the demand for boat crossings. Process claims off-shore so that they don't need any crossing boat or not. But we do not. Why? Because despite a huuuuuge list of things we could do, people like your good self say "nobody has any other ideas"
If these details are accurate, it's very good news for the economics of the RN being able to maintain its nuclear submarine capacity into the next decade.
AUKUS details trickling out. Bloomberg says Australia will go for "modified British design w/ US parts". Guardian says "British design" w/ "heavy use of US tech." That's late 2030s. Reuters says gap filled with US fwd deployment to Aus & then Aus operating 3-5 Virginia-class. https://mobile.twitter.com/shashj/status/1633594396619808768
I seem to remember France saying that the UK was just the fifth wheel on the carriage in the deal so it wasn't even worth recalling the ambassador.
There wasn't really much actual substance to the deal at the time. That appears to have changed.
So...the scorn and mockery was not unreasonable because they didn't instantly jump from no deal to fully worked up proposals?
Wasn’t it because they thought they had a deal w it Oz that got junked?
Matthew Parris has written again today on the lines he has done before. His (depressing) basic thesis seems to be as soundly based as anything I have come across and I have never met with a decent refutation.
The UK government already has safe legal routes open for refugees - I know this as a local community resettlement group I am part of welcomed a family fleeing genocide to the UK on Tuesday evening. They flew into Heathrow. The problem is that the numbers taken in through this route are so low. If the government were to go down the Rwanda route combined with a significant expansion of existing legal resettlement schemes they would get more of a hearing from people like me. Right now it feels like they simply want us to shirk our responsibilities while being unnecessarily cruel to throw red meat to those voters who wouldn't let in refugees under any circumstances.
What is the evidence that more coming from expanded legal routes would reduce the number from illegal routes? It likely would just encourage more chain migration with more people that have "connections in the UK". You know, the rationale left wingers use for why people can't claim asylum in the first seven safr countries.
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
It is about competence now, this. No good the Conservative party pretending to be all Dick Dastardly on this when the Pigeon evades them year in, year out.
We are nigh at 50 ways to botch asylum and the current round of 'Please just stop the boats, scrotes' lawmaking to all officialdom involved seems to have no more behind it that will actually achieve an end result as any of v the others.
The fact that Starmer went on the small boats with all of his six questions at PMQs yesterday shows that Labour is quite happy to talk about the issue. Labour may be calling this wrong, of course, but it's hard to believe this has not been focused grouped to death. The government is at the delivery stage now.
Does it disappoint you that Starmer went on competence? From what I can tell, Starmer thinks that the boats need stopping without simply opening the border.
The boats should be stopped. Of course they should.
Because it’s an insane method of crossing the channel! Not because we want to stop immigration and certainly not because we want to stop people claiming asylum here. People who got a reasonable right to should be welcomed, as in 1938 or thereabouts.
Yep - that's pretty much how I see it.
Despite all the sound and fury I have not heard any ideas how to stop the boats from Labour or anyone else
It seems labour's idea is to arrest all the people smugglers and have safe routes in France/Calais for asylum seekers to be processed
The safe routes will only attract tens of thousands more and overwhelm the system while the boats keep on coming
Sunak's tough love approach is stark but I think this is only part of his strategy when I expect he sees close cooperation with Macron as the key and hopefully tomorrow's talks will be successful
Apparently the Rwanda scheme is unlimited and not restricted to 200
The other issue that will be challenging for labour is the annual limit on immigration to be announced shortly
There are no easy solutions but stopping the boats is a must to prevent drowning and surely we must all agree the urgency in this issue
Every day - there are no other answers so we must do something illegal that wont work but will damage trust in our courts.
Every day - several pb reply with other answers that are already working effectively in other countries.
Can you explain which other countries have the same issue with boats other than Italy and what is your answer
£100k fines per employee for dodgy employers, with directors personally liable for a significant proportion of that and employees encouraged financially to whistleblow. (Happens in Switzerland) Fund the courts and immigration services, simplify processes to process 95% in <2 months rather than 2 years. (Happens in Netherlands)
Longer term, lobby to change current convention to international quota system with processing centres close to conflicts and financial transfers from countries taking least refugees to those taking the most.
Boats is a red herring, the issue is the number of refugees, if we wanted to get them off the boats and back onto the tunnel we could just take down the Calais fencing - but we, as in the country, do not want the numbers whether they come by boat or not, and our courts and immigration service cannot cope with the status quo.
Gary Lineker is entitled to express his wanky opinions. The BBC is entitled to sack him or not. In this case I believe they should - he’s done it once too often, it’s causing the BBC more grief than it’s worth. If they lose 10,000 licence fee payers forever that far outweighs the value of any soccer pundit
But it’s their call
What DOES anger me is Lineker’s fucking outrageous tax avoidance. He earns £1.5m a year yet still strenuously tries to dodge as much tax as possible. What is wrong with these people?
You earn an average annual salary every ten days, Gary. Just PAY YOUR FUCKING TAX.
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
It is about competence now, this. No good the Conservative party pretending to be all Dick Dastardly on this when the Pigeon evades them year in, year out.
We are nigh at 50 ways to botch asylum and the current round of 'Please just stop the boats, scrotes' lawmaking to all officialdom involved seems to have no more behind it that will actually achieve an end result as any of v the others.
The fact that Starmer went on the small boats with all of his six questions at PMQs yesterday shows that Labour is quite happy to talk about the issue. Labour may be calling this wrong, of course, but it's hard to believe this has not been focused grouped to death. The government is at the delivery stage now.
Does it disappoint you that Starmer went on competence? From what I can tell, Starmer thinks that the boats need stopping without simply opening the border.
The boats should be stopped. Of course they should.
Because it’s an insane method of crossing the channel! Not because we want to stop immigration and certainly not because we want to stop people claiming asylum here. People who got a reasonable right to should be welcomed, as in 1938 or thereabouts.
The issue has become very confused. I think its right to want the boats stopped - the risks involved are hideous, and we shouldn't accept people drowning in the channel.
We also need to be better at taking genuine asylum claimaints, and we need to have routes available to do that. In my opinion Calais is not the place - it will still act as a draw to migrants. It needs to be based near to the trouble spots round the world.
And then we need to be better at processing the people we have in the system. Its should take weeks not years and those who have a right to be here should be able to work to support themselves.
Where we are now, some are conflating saying 'stop the boats' with stop all immigrants. That might be what some people think/want, but its probably not that common a view across the public. But there is a real issue around Albanians (as seen in the recent data), most of whom are not reasonably in need of asylum.
It's undoubtedly true that they did discuss more than was shown in the film, but I note they are reluctant to say on *what* grounds they refused it if it wasn't pure nimbyism by the dark skies obsessive and the planning barrister who confused metres and acres (and claimed it was his dyslexia so that it doesn't matter that his legal documents are incorrect).
My understanding of planning law regarding farm tracks - which may of course be entirely wrong - is that they have also placed a somewhat novel interpretation on it.
The amusing part of that dispute really is that both of them deserve to look like idiots. WODC for being a bunch of third rate NIMBY muppets, and Clarkson, for being - well, Clarkson.
And they do...
I’ve no doubt that the series presents one side of the story. And yet Clarkson is trying to farm, and is trying get a business going, and met a wall of objection, leading to things being far worse than needed. People in the countryside need jobs too, or soon it will all be rich folk who have either retired or who commute to London twice a week.
I’m really enjoying Clarkson’s Farm, and especially the planning meeting episode (no spoilers please - I’m only up to and including that episode).
The farming scenes are absolutely excellent, if a struggle to watch at times (the calving was at once gross and heartwarming).
It does, of course, only show one side of the story vis a vis locals’ attitudes to economic development, but nevertheless offers an interesting window on rural life.
I've been to too many planning meetings, I'm worried about watching that episode in case it triggers PTSD.
I once had a planning decision on the 24 December which was their deadline for producing it to extend my garage and build a porch. The decision referred to:
Our house being on a corner plot. It isn't
Our plot being both large and small
Our house being both detached and semi detached
But the best bit was I was given permission to build a Conservatory, which was nice of them, but I already had one and preferred to go with my original decision for a porch and garage extension.
It was clear there was a cut and paste job going on. You could see where the subject matter changed. I assume panic because of the deadline and maybe a Christmas party.
They told me it was ok anyway. I wasn't happy until it at least reflected some element of reality, which they did. They refused to change the decision date, which potentially could have had an impact if I was a laggard at getting stuff done, which I wasn't.
My only other two planning permission applications had similar if not quite as bizarre elements.
Well seeing as that went down well here are my only other 2 planning application.
Convert half of a double garage into a room - Tree preservation man came out to see if it was going to impact any trees to which the obvious question was how? He arrived and immediately left. Why didn't he look at the plans before visiting me?
Loft conversion - Parish Council recommended that the dormer to accommodate the stairs be moved from the front to the back without actually considering what I was going to do about the stairs then. Twits. However it wasn't a problem as the stairs and therefore dormer were at the back of the house anyway so I was happy to comply as that was what was in the plans they were looking at. They couldn't tell the difference between the front and rear of the house.
And finally re the loft I requested 2 velux windows front and back. Planning permission only allowed for 1 at the front. I challenged it and the planner told me I could appeal, etc. It then dawned on me that I might not need planning permission for a velux if that was all I was doing so I asked the planning official if that was the case. He went all sheepish and said yes. So I said if I built it according to what you have allowed and 5 seconds later put in an extra velux that would be ok then? A very reluctant 'yes' was the reply. I had 2 velux windows at the front without any complaints from planners.
Kafkaesque.
Where do they dig these people up?
Most do their best in overworked, underpaid conditions in a job where people often casually accuse them of gross corruption trying to sort things out between ever changing and stupidly complex local and national planning rules. Frankly I'm surprised more don't become bitter petty rulemasters.
In fairness, as I said, none of it caused me any issues and just entertainment and one of the idiotic items was actually the parish council, not planning. Also the building control side of things went very well and they showed flexibility.
I was annoyed about not changing the decision date, because that did reduce my time window for building, but it was never an issue. I did assume it was to ensure they met their deadline for making a decision. Clearly what I got was not a decision I could rely upon, even though they told me I could.
Comments
That's a win/win.
And yet the conversation is all about "stop popular bloke saying stuff", which does sound a bit... you know... Nazi...
Whilst giving more publicity to the original comments and putting a dead cat atop something the government is meant to be proud of
They won't resource the Border Agency or the Home Office or the legal system
They don't have the detention facilities and can't build new ones
They won't fund new detention facilities even if they manage to find a site that the locals don;t go apeshit about
They can't deport to Rwanda because Rwanda won't take them
They can't return most home because they don't have and won't get agreements to do so
And there's the minor issue of becoming international pariahs for proposing to break international law
Its a non-policy. People very clearly want action, and this is inaction. I can see Labour actually gaining traction the longer this goes on because they actually have a workable proposal...
Granted that's just a fancy name for paprika flavour.
I don’t think that Rishi expected quite the sort of comments that he’s getting.
The reality seems to be that the policy was deliberately designed to fan the flames, rather than actually to address the problem.
Do you pay the BBC licence fee?
Not dead against cheese, but dislike it with some stuff (pasta, for example).
Mr. kle4, never actually had Doritos.
Our house being on a corner plot. It isn't
Our plot being both large and small
Our house being both detached and semi detached
But the best bit was I was given permission to build a Conservatory, which was nice of them, but I already had one and preferred to go with my original decision for a porch and garage extension.
It was clear there was a cut and paste job going on. You could see where the subject matter changed. I assume panic because of the deadline and maybe a Christmas party.
They told me it was ok anyway. I wasn't happy until it at least reflected some element of reality, which they did. They refused to change the decision date, which potentially could have had an impact if I was a laggard at getting stuff done, which I wasn't.
My only other two planning permission applications had similar if not quite as bizarre elements.
Then again maybe its music to their ears.
Half-formed thought.
Truss was an uncomprehending cosplay Thatcher. She couldn't pull it off because she didn't really understand what she was doing.
Is Sunak a similarly uncomprehending cosplay Johnson?
But if it has enough effect that the boats stop coming, then it will create a problem/dilemma for labour.
I think the Government are very wrong in their policy regarding the boats in the channel.
I think Lineker is very wrong in his 1930s Nazi comparison.
I think those wanting to silence Lineker or have him sacked from the BBC are very wrong to try and do that. He may be very wrong but he has the right to say what he thinks.
A nice symmetry to start the day. Everyone is very wrong.
I'm not against development (liar) but we need land for food security etc.
This is very low quality land that barely produces any, if at all.
...you can't trust a rating and expert opinion.
It wouldn't surprise if he was cosplaying as a result.
The only group Rishi has made a net gain from are 2019 LD voters
I wonder if the BBC "spoke with him" after that? Mrs T seemed to be very satisfied with his performance so probably not.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Village-Third-Reich-Transformed-bestseller-ebook/dp/B09RMQRR9T/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=310CGEC7WKSBX&keywords=julia+boyd+a+village+in+the+third+reich&qid=1678352212&sprefix=julia+boyd,aps,83&sr=8-1
The BBC are wrong to regard him as their most valued 'talent' and could use licence fee payers' money more effectively.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0759886/characters/nm0486413
Hugh Abbot : Malcolm, I've talked to the PM and this is completely kosher as far as he's concerned. He gave the go-ahead and he said, you know, bounce the Treasury.
Malcolm Tucker : You don't seem to understand that I am gonna have to mop up a fucking hurricane of piss here from all of these neurotics! What did the Prime Minister actually say to you?
Hugh Abbot : He actually said this is exactly the kind of thing we should be doing.
Malcolm Tucker : What did he actually say?
Hugh Abbot : He said this is exactly the sort of thing we should be doing.
Malcolm Tucker : 'SHOULD' be doing. 'Should' does not mean 'yes'.
Convert half of a double garage into a room - Tree preservation man came out to see if it was going to impact any trees to which the obvious question was how? He arrived and immediately left. Why didn't he look at the plans before visiting me?
Loft conversion - Parish Council recommended that the dormer to accommodate the stairs be moved from the front to the back without actually considering what I was going to do about the stairs then. Twits. However it wasn't a problem as the stairs and therefore dormer were at the back of the house anyway so I was happy to comply as that was what was in the plans they were looking at. They couldn't tell the difference between the front and rear of the house.
And finally re the loft I requested 2 velux windows front and back. Planning permission only allowed for 1 at the front. I challenged it and the planner told me I could appeal, etc. It then dawned on me that I might not need planning permission for a velux if that was all I was doing so I asked the planning official if that was the case. He went all sheepish and said yes. So I said if I built it according to what you have allowed and 5 seconds later put in an extra velux that would be ok then? A very reluctant 'yes' was the reply. I had 2 velux windows at the front without any complaints from planners.
Where do they dig these people up?
Indeed I have not watched MOD for decades
New Labour, Nazi Danger.
There was a big fashion for the heavy, American style shot glasses. They got stolen at a rate.
So we introduced a deposit. 50p had no effect. £1 had no effect.
We were up to £2.50 - still no effect.
I was the one who asked about cost. It turned out, that since we ordered them in huge boxes from the manufacturer, the price per glass was less than £1.
Given that a fair number were not being stolen, I pointed out that we were running a retail business with profit in the hundreds of percent….
I have only ever had 3 planning applications and all have been bonkers, however in fairness none have actually caused me any problems and all have provided lots of entertainment.
It’s an irregular verb
I enforce rules on neutrality and decency
You are against free speech
He/She/It is a Witchfinder
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-safe-routes-to-asylum-cant-work/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=CampaignMonitor_Editorial&utm_campaign=WEEK 20230309 AL+CID_ee22fbc98053ca9c36f0acc917904aca
It seems labour's idea is to arrest all the people smugglers and have safe routes in France/Calais for asylum seekers to be processed
The safe routes will only attract tens of thousands more and overwhelm the system while the boats keep on coming
Sunak's tough love approach is stark but I think this is only part of his strategy when I expect he sees close cooperation with Macron as the key and hopefully tomorrow's talks will be successful
Apparently the Rwanda scheme is unlimited and not restricted to 200
The other issue that will be challenging for labour is the annual limit on immigration to be announced shortly
There are no easy solutions but stopping the boats is a must to prevent drowning and surely we must all agree the urgency in this issue
Every day - several pb reply with other answers that are already working effectively in other countries.
There are at least five in the first 100 yards along the road.
Law of unintended consequences and all that.
1 The latest Tory plan does not work at all. See my previous list posts. No aspect of it is deliverable and they know this
2 Without safe routes you will get your tens of thousands coming on boats. They are coming whether you like it or not. Question is how we route them here and what we then do with them
3 Why can't we arrest the people smugglers? So many of them are in the UK - jail them! Why can't we raid warehouses full of dinghies being used by the people smugglers - impound them! These are basics of policing that we simply can't do. The Labour proposal is to nick and impound - and you say that won't work? Take away most of the smugglers and most of the boats and that puts a massive dent in their capability doesn't it?
4 We say the Rwanda scheme is unlimited. Rwanda says 200. It is fabulously arrogant for people here to keep telling the Rwandan government they are wrong about what the Rwandan government is prepared to do.
Quite rightly you highlight the human tragedy of this - people drown. So why cannot we engage in sensible and practical discussions to end it? The Tory law last year which you support failed on every level. As did the one before that. The latest bill is written in crayon to enrage morons, and still you provide it succour - why?
Personally I think the Conservative approach ineffective, very costly and ultimately unsustainable. Nevertheless Sunak can keep it going until at least the next election and it is a different policy.
On a good day.
1 We could arrest and jail the people smugglers as most are in the UK. Why don't we?
2 We could impound and destroy the warehouses of dinghies being used. Why don't we?
3 We could co-operate with the French - whilst a summit is to happen its the first in years. Why do we think shouting abuse at the French was better than diplomacy?
4 We could open up safe routes. Allow the Afghans we betrayed and abandoned to get here safely. Why are we such massive shits to our former allies?
We could do HUGE things. Stop the smugglers. Remove the demand for boat crossings. Process claims off-shore so that they don't need any crossing boat or not. But we do not. Why? Because despite a huuuuuge list of things we could do, people like your good self say "nobody has any other ideas"
Fund the courts and immigration services, simplify processes to process 95% in <2 months rather than 2 years. (Happens in Netherlands)
Longer term, lobby to change current convention to international quota system with processing centres close to conflicts and financial transfers from countries taking least refugees to those taking the most.
Boats is a red herring, the issue is the number of refugees, if we wanted to get them off the boats and back onto the tunnel we could just take down the Calais fencing - but we, as in the country, do not want the numbers whether they come by boat or not, and our courts and immigration service cannot cope with the status quo.
But it’s their call
What DOES anger me is Lineker’s fucking outrageous tax avoidance. He earns £1.5m a year yet still strenuously tries to dodge as much tax as possible. What is wrong with these people?
You earn an average annual salary every ten days, Gary. Just PAY YOUR FUCKING TAX.
We also need to be better at taking genuine asylum claimaints, and we need to have routes available to do that. In my opinion Calais is not the place - it will still act as a draw to migrants. It needs to be based near to the trouble spots round the world.
And then we need to be better at processing the people we have in the system. Its should take weeks not years and those who have a right to be here should be able to work to support themselves.
Where we are now, some are conflating saying 'stop the boats' with stop all immigrants. That might be what some people think/want, but its probably not that common a view across the public. But there is a real issue around Albanians (as seen in the recent data), most of whom are not reasonably in need of asylum.
I was annoyed about not changing the decision date, because that did reduce my time window for building, but it was never an issue. I did assume it was to ensure they met their deadline for making a decision. Clearly what I got was not a decision I could rely upon, even though they told me I could.