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?
3. As long as there are people wanting to cross the Channel, there will be people happy enough to help them. So all "nick and impound" will do is leave a gap in the market for someone to fill. We've been here before with drugs. (And, of course, that assumes that Labour in government won't revert to its instincts to open the borders.)
4. Why do you assume that the Rwandan government is any more honest in its public pronouncements than any other?
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?
I think I have just listed half the Labour plan. Your "how many" number is telling on several grounds: 1 Its clear to all of us who aren't amoral tossers that the proposed cap will be zero. OK so ministers will have to resist, but we can pretty much name the Tory MPs, commentators and media outlets who will say "Stop the Boats means stop asylum seekers". 2 Its clear to everyone with a brain that the proposed "Stop The Boats" Tory plan will have tens of thousands come here every year. Interned in detention centres that don't exist. How will you house them? 3 Rwanda can take a few hundred. Where do the rest go? What will you do with them?
We need a discussion that doesn't involve crayons. I fear you are already out of that from a capacity perspective.
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.
And are you employed by the Spectator or are you a freelancer?
And if a freelancer how are you different from Gary Lineker?
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.
Watched a documentary on Oxford Uni last week. The behaviour of the undergrads was totally outrageous, beating up homeless people and the like.
The documentary is well work a watch - I think it was called 'Endeavour'.
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?
3. As long as there are people wanting to cross the Channel, there will be people happy enough to help them. So all "nick and impound" will do is leave a gap in the market for someone to fill. We've been here before with drugs. (And, of course, that assumes that Labour in government won't revert to its instincts to open the borders.)
4. Why do you assume that the Rwandan government is any more honest in its public pronouncements than any other?
So because new criminals will replace old criminals we should stop arresting criminals? Is that the latest right wing crime policy? Blimey, that won't go down well in the Red Wall.
As for Rwanda, you are saying their government is dishonest. So we have to send our migrants their and nowhere else - it is a Safe Country. But they are dishonest, so we can't trust then, and we usually allow asylum claims from Rwandans because it is an unsafe country.
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?
Of course, it was a giant hissy fit, but the dismissal of it re UK element on basis there were not concrete details then wouldn't make sense
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.
And are you employed by the Spectator or are you a freelancer?
And if a freelancer how are you different from Gary Lineker?
Its a bit early in the morning to open the bag of popcorn, but go on then...
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.
And are you employed by the Spectator or are you a freelancer?
And if a freelancer how are you different from Gary Lineker?
Ten world cup goals vs ten split and slightly disturbing personalities?
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 generally agree
However the one tweak is that the BBC has a policy that high profile personalities shouldn’t make controversial political comments.
He’s basically told BBC management to do one
May be he can get away with it (despite previous form) but it’s not a good look
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.
And are you employed by the Spectator or are you a freelancer?
And if a freelancer how are you different from Gary Lineker?
I don’t earn £1.5m a year. If I did I’d say to my accountant “just pay what I owe”. Who needs the grief of tax avoidance schemes if you are THAT rich? It’s immoral
Indeed I don’t do elaborate tax avoidance on my much humbler wages. I’m a freelance dildo knapper and I pay my due and legal tax. That’s it
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.
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.
Our planners wanted to insist on a hipped roof, we didn't want it. After much to-ing and fro-ing they said we could keep our roof design provided we rendered over the brickwork in the old part of the house (?!)
We agreed as that was already clearly shown as our intention in the plans we had submitted.
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?
Re point 3 I’m not sure it’s as easy as “arrest them and jail them”. I know we all see in Line of Duty etc how easy it is to bug phones and infiltrate Organised Crime gangs but in real life it’s not that easy - otherwise there would be hardly any drugs gangs in the UK as all we need to do is monitor their phones, get DCI John Undercover to copy the laptop details and take secret photos and present it all to court and they all get banged up.
The trafficking gangs are not just a couple of blokes working as crap illegal travel agents. They have their foot soldiers on the ground like the low level dealers and if they get picked up then they know nothing useful and get replaced quickly.
They are also “closed groups” in a way that drugs gangs aren’t - so if you have a trafficking group of Albanians they are super close knit and it’s very hard to get either an undercover officer into them or turn someone in the gang. At least with drugs gangs they take in waifs and strays from all backgrounds.
So it’s easier to remove their customers and whatever your views on the current gov plan it would probably have more effect if they littered the whole area the customers are with huge joint UK/French gov billboards, targeted social media ads etc pointing out the brutal new laws that if you go “illegally” then you are screwed. Eventually the message seeps through that it’s not worth spending the £3k you struggled for to get flown off to Rwanda and never be allowed in the UK again.
And as for safe routes for people to apply through, good luck getting a mayor in France to allow such a centre in his town as the locals will go nuts at the prospect of potentially thousands of people heading their way to apply for a golden ticket.
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?
1) - Today's Times explains how this will work
2) - Safe routes in France would see tens of thousands more attending while the boats still arrive . 3) - People smugglers are being arrested in the UK and of course the dinghies are not here in UK warehouses but across Europe which requires European police to arrest
4) - Rwanda scheme is unlimited
I support stopping the boats now and have explained how this is stark but also part of Sunak’s approach which will see close engagement with Macron to stop the boats in France and hopefully deal with the supply of dinghies which largely come from Germany
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.
Human nature, people will cry. Yet many others don't seek to dodge. Not even Boris did when running for mayor, weirdly. What public benefit is there to allowing those with good accountants to find legal dodges?
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.
The point is that the world is a dangerous place, with war and genocide creating flows of people who face death if they don't find somewhere safe to live. These people are our version of the Jews fleeing the Nazis. The question then is what is the UK's fair share of those people to take in? Do we step up to the moral responsibility that fate has presented us with? Simply leaving it wholly to countries closer to those affected (who already take in millions of refugees with far fewer resources to support them) doesn't seem like a fair solution to me. Once we are doing our bit then we can talk about closing the doors to others.
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?
3. As long as there are people wanting to cross the Channel, there will be people happy enough to help them. So all "nick and impound" will do is leave a gap in the market for someone to fill. We've been here before with drugs. (And, of course, that assumes that Labour in government won't revert to its instincts to open the borders.)
4. Why do you assume that the Rwandan government is any more honest in its public pronouncements than any other?
So because new criminals will replace old criminals we should stop arresting criminals? Is that the latest right wing crime policy? Blimey, that won't go down well in the Red Wall.
As for Rwanda, you are saying their government is dishonest. So we have to send our migrants their and nowhere else - it is a Safe Country. But they are dishonest, so we can't trust then, and we usually allow asylum claims from Rwandans because it is an unsafe country.
Yep. Solid logic there.
I don't know about right-wing policies. I'm just pointing out that your Big Idea won't work (if Labour even try it).
As for the Rwandan government, they're acting in their own interest. Like any government. It wouldn't be in their own interest to admit a plan to accept tens of thousands if such a plan existed. Get consent for the small plan, then ramp it up.
Jesus Christ can this be true? Surely not?? Why did no one warn us???? Etc etc
“Matt Hancock was censored by the Cabinet Office over his concerns that the Covid-19 pandemic began with a lab leak in Wuhan, The Lockdown Files reveal. The former health secretary was told to tone down claims in his book, Pandemic Diaries, because the Government feared it would "cause problems" with China.
“Mr Hancock wanted to say that the Chinese explanation - that the virus being discovered close to a government science lab in Wuhan was coincidental - "just doesn't fly". But, in correspondence from late last year, the Cabinet Office told him that the Government's position was that the original outbreak's location was "entirely coincidental". Mr Hancock was warned that to differ from this narrative, which resembles China's version of events, risked "damaging national security". You can read the full investigation on our website.”
Just as an fyi I am listening to Prof Daunuta Hubner, MEP, speak about the philosophy of risk. Google her I'd say she is around 60-ish. Probably I'd buy 60 yrs old.
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?
I think I have just listed half the Labour plan. Your "how many" number is telling on several grounds: 1 Its clear to all of us who aren't amoral tossers that the proposed cap will be zero. OK so ministers will have to resist, but we can pretty much name the Tory MPs, commentators and media outlets who will say "Stop the Boats means stop asylum seekers". 2 Its clear to everyone with a brain that the proposed "Stop The Boats" Tory plan will have tens of thousands come here every year. Interned in detention centres that don't exist. How will you house them? 3 Rwanda can take a few hundred. Where do the rest go? What will you do with them?
We need a discussion that doesn't involve crayons. I fear you are already out of that from a capacity perspective.
Please link to the Labour policy from where you describe half of it.
And I see you can't describe the impact in terms of number of claims. A party expecting to be the next government should be able to estimate the impact of its approach.
You, of course, are trying to distract from this by throwing out insults every few sentences in the hope of getting a reaction. Unfortunately, this is projection on your behalf that I suffer from the same insecurities that you do, which I do not.
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.
And are you employed by the Spectator or are you a freelancer?
And if a freelancer how are you different from Gary Lineker?
I don’t earn £1.5m a year. If I did I’d say to my accountant “just pay what I owe”. Who needs the grief of tax avoidance schemes if you are THAT rich? It’s immoral
Indeed I don’t do elaborate tax avoidance on my much humbler wages. I’m a freelance dildo knapper and I pay my due and legal tax. That’s it
Define "what I owe". What you owe depends on how you are being taxed which depends on a variety of things. You pay your accountant to reduce what you owe as does Lineker as do all the other broadcasters who are freelance rather than staff.
Just as an fyi I am listening to Prof Daunuta Hubner, MEP, speak about the philosophy of risk. Google her I'd say she is around 60-ish. Probably I'd buy 60 yrs old.
She is wearing a "BDSM" necklace a la Liz Truss.
Are we sure we were right about that one.
Yes. We were right. Confirmed from multiple sources - some of them on here
Just as an fyi I am listening to Prof Daunuta Hubner, MEP, speak about the philosophy of risk. Google her I'd say she is around 60-ish. Probably I'd buy 60 yrs old.
She is wearing a "BDSM" necklace a la Liz Truss.
Are we sure we were right about that one.
Yes. We were right. Confirmed from multiple sources - some of them on here
Jesus Christ can this be true? Surely not?? Why did no one warn us???? Etc etc
“Matt Hancock was censored by the Cabinet Office over his concerns that the Covid-19 pandemic began with a lab leak in Wuhan, The Lockdown Files reveal. The former health secretary was told to tone down claims in his book, Pandemic Diaries, because the Government feared it would "cause problems" with China.
“Mr Hancock wanted to say that the Chinese explanation - that the virus being discovered close to a government science lab in Wuhan was coincidental - "just doesn't fly". But, in correspondence from late last year, the Cabinet Office told him that the Government's position was that the original outbreak's location was "entirely coincidental". Mr Hancock was warned that to differ from this narrative, which resembles China's version of events, risked "damaging national security". You can read the full investigation on our website.”
Just as an fyi I am listening to Prof Daunuta Hubner, MEP, speak about the philosophy of risk. Google her I'd say she is around 60-ish. Probably I'd buy 60 yrs old.
She is wearing a "BDSM" necklace a la Liz Truss.
Are we sure we were right about that one.
Isn't it also a solution for people whose fingers get too fat to comfortably wear their wedding ring?
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
Voting intention now C,L,LD,G,S,R/UKIP 31,47,8,5,4,5, then 26,51,9,4,4,5. So on headline terms +5 C, -4 L (noise for the others).
Comparing movement in 2019 votes (page 2 of the pdfs)
C voters in 2019 now: 68% C, 19% L, 3% LD, 8% R, 2% G. Then 61% C, 28% L, 3% LD, 6% R. So the Rishi movement in 2019 conservative voters is clawring 10% back from L whilst losing some to Reform and Green.
Not much movement in Labour voters in 2019 (less leakage to G) but still only around 2% switchers to C. So Rishi does not provide greater appeal to L 2019 voters.
With the LD 2019 vote, a better retention now for the 2019 votes with less transfering to Labour, but more transfering to Greens.
This is only one snapshot, and does not include don't knows which are an important factor.
But this suggests that the main Rishi effect has been to reduce the number of C to L switchers, with little impact on the LD/C movement.
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.
The point is that the world is a dangerous place, with war and genocide creating flows of people who face death if they don't find somewhere safe to live. These people are our version of the Jews fleeing the Nazis. The question then is what is the UK's fair share of those people to take in? Do we step up to the moral responsibility that fate has presented us with? Simply leaving it wholly to countries closer to those affected (who already take in millions of refugees with far fewer resources to support them) doesn't seem like a fair solution to me. Once we are doing our bit then we can talk about closing the doors to others.
We take about 1% of refugees and are about 1% of the worlds population. Some will say we should take less as we are over crowded, others will say more as we are richer. As its completely arbitrary between those two happy to balance those out and say we take about the right number at the moment.
However the problems are refugees have to take very dangerous and expensive journeys to get here, we are hopelessly inefficient at processing them and the process strengthens organised crime and weakens our courts, so reform is still needed, just not the pretend reforms the govt is proposing.
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.
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.
And are you employed by the Spectator or are you a freelancer?
And if a freelancer how are you different from Gary Lineker?
I don’t earn £1.5m a year. If I did I’d say to my accountant “just pay what I owe”. Who needs the grief of tax avoidance schemes if you are THAT rich? It’s immoral
Indeed I don’t do elaborate tax avoidance on my much humbler wages. I’m a freelance dildo knapper and I pay my due and legal tax. That’s it
Sorry that is just a bunch of random words.
My understanding, and I may be wrong, but the issue is over whether he is a BBC employee or freelancer.
If my assumption is right how does he differ from you? Are you going to volunteer to become a Spectator employee or are you going to enjoy your freelance status? As I believe you should.
What he earns is irrelevant. What matters is whether he is avoiding tax. You have taken it upon yourself to find him guilty of that and of using tax avoidance schemes, which is far from obvious.
You jump to conclusions a lot. Potentially you are no different to him in your tax status, yet you find him guilty of tax avoidance.
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.
And are you employed by the Spectator or are you a freelancer?
And if a freelancer how are you different from Gary Lineker?
Ask HMRC. Plenty of people claim to he freelancers but are clearly not once the taxman takes a detailed look at it.
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.
And are you employed by the Spectator or are you a freelancer?
And if a freelancer how are you different from Gary Lineker?
Ask HMRC. Plenty of people claim to he freelancers but are clearly not.
He had 9 jobs in 2021, has done significant work for ITV and BT Sport as well as BBC in broadcasting.
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.
The point is that the world is a dangerous place, with war and genocide creating flows of people who face death if they don't find somewhere safe to live. These people are our version of the Jews fleeing the Nazis. The question then is what is the UK's fair share of those people to take in? Do we step up to the moral responsibility that fate has presented us with? Simply leaving it wholly to countries closer to those affected (who already take in millions of refugees with far fewer resources to support them) doesn't seem like a fair solution to me. Once we are doing our bit then we can talk about closing the doors to others.
The issue with this is that the number of people who qualify for "facing war and genocide", when expanded to the whole world, is tens of millions. Possibly hundreds of millions. If you give the UK a "fair share" of that, it is in the millions, which would overwhelm our housing capacity and welfare net. This is because the current definition is much more expanded than the equivalent of 1930s Jews. It would include any regular Germans fleeing here too.
And of course, once we had our "fair share" that would not be the end of it. The 5m would all have uncles and cousins that would want to be here and many would end up in Calais. The left would be arguing for them to come based on family connections too.
The right approach is for refugees to be hosted as close as possible to the site of origin, and for the international community to step up to fund these places properly. Exceptions of people likely to still be persecuted in these camps, such as Yazidis, gay people etc, we should bring here and let in.
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.
And are you employed by the Spectator or are you a freelancer?
And if a freelancer how are you different from Gary Lineker?
I don’t earn £1.5m a year. If I did I’d say to my accountant “just pay what I owe”. Who needs the grief of tax avoidance schemes if you are THAT rich? It’s immoral
Indeed I don’t do elaborate tax avoidance on my much humbler wages. I’m a freelance dildo knapper and I pay my due and legal tax. That’s it
Define "what I owe". What you owe depends on how you are being taxed which depends on a variety of things. You pay your accountant to reduce what you owe as does Lineker as do all the other broadcasters who are freelance rather than staff.
And there should be far less opportunity to do that. Its abused often enough its obviously far too broad.
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.
And are you employed by the Spectator or are you a freelancer?
And if a freelancer how are you different from Gary Lineker?
Ask HMRC. Plenty of people claim to he freelancers but are clearly not once the taxman takes a detailed look at it.
Well obviously and that is what it is all about (I believe). On the face of it he is as is @Leon , but Leon just jumps to conclusions that he is avoiding tax. As usual Leon jumps to conclusions.
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.
I was thinking of going in @StuartDickson’s order, but after the STV debate, I am leaning towards @malcolmg’s order, However, there are another couple of weeks to decide. I will be watching them on Channel 4 at 7pm tonight and on Sky News at 8pm on Monday. I will also watch the BBC debate on Tuesday at 8pm, which I assume will be a BBC presenter’s gotcha fest 😔. Then I will decide who is the best candidate to beat Yousaf.
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.
Just as an fyi I am listening to Prof Daunuta Hubner, MEP, speak about the philosophy of risk. Google her I'd say she is around 60-ish. Probably I'd buy 60 yrs old.
Just as an fyi I am listening to Prof Daunuta Hubner, MEP, speak about the philosophy of risk. Google her I'd say she is around 60-ish. Probably I'd buy 60 yrs old.
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
I've dropped Sky and BT Sports as I can rarely be bothered watching whole games anymore. A review of all the action on MOTD suits me just fine.
Just as an fyi I am listening to Prof Daunuta Hubner, MEP, speak about the philosophy of risk. Google her I'd say she is around 60-ish. Probably I'd buy 60 yrs old.
She is wearing a "BDSM" necklace a la Liz Truss.
Are we sure we were right about that one.
She's 74, so whatever she's doing must have anti-ageing properties.
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?
The boats are being bought in France. And often abandoned at the U.K. end.
The French have not moved to do anything about people buying the boats for cash. This is because it is a flourishing business to sell boats to smugglers. Why would politicians fuck up their people making money?
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.
Looks like Lineker might be on his way acc to the Times
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.
Human nature, people will cry. Yet many others don't seek to dodge. Not even Boris did when running for mayor, weirdly. What public benefit is there to allowing those with good accountants to find legal dodges?
The Boris thing was deliberate - he asked to be paid directly rather than through a limited company. Which he had previously used, like nearly every other politician.
This came in handy when Livingstone accused him of tax dodging, in the campaign for mayor. Amusingly, Livingstone used a limited company for his own media stuff - he torpedoed himself.
Why Boris did this is a question. It was before the MPs expenses scandal.
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.
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?
They follow ticksheets
They set their brains to read-only mode as they leave the production line.
Nope would be Lab/Lib coalition with Tories supporting on an informal basis as they did with Salmond after 2007.
Alternatively, the poll scares the shit out of the SNP membership (thank goodness) and we make the sensible choice and ditch the current FAV Yousaf. He’s clearly not hitting the mark.
Interesting point. However surely Kate burnt her bridges with too many folk last night? Including the Murrells.
Kate Forbes burnt her bridges with the current leadership and their elected supporters the minute she announced she was standing in the leadership contest, and they had their attack lines ready in the hope of holing her campaign below the waterline before the nominations even closed. And so while her tactics at the STV hustings might be seen as very risky when she is trying to woo the SNP membership, those watching also saw that the attack lines from Opposition parties were almost going to write themselves because of Humza Yousaf's poor performance in the key Ministerial briefs of Transport, Justice and Health. And all this at a time when the incoming FM's domestic tray is piling up and over flowing with scandals and bad headlines left by their precedessor Nicola Sturgeon.
Comments
4. Why do you assume that the Rwandan government is any more honest in its public pronouncements than any other?
1 Its clear to all of us who aren't amoral tossers that the proposed cap will be zero. OK so ministers will have to resist, but we can pretty much name the Tory MPs, commentators and media outlets who will say "Stop the Boats means stop asylum seekers".
2 Its clear to everyone with a brain that the proposed "Stop The Boats" Tory plan will have tens of thousands come here every year. Interned in detention centres that don't exist. How will you house them?
3 Rwanda can take a few hundred. Where do the rest go? What will you do with them?
We need a discussion that doesn't involve crayons. I fear you are already out of that from a capacity perspective.
And if a freelancer how are you different from Gary Lineker?
The documentary is well work a watch - I think it was called 'Endeavour'.
As for Rwanda, you are saying their government is dishonest. So we have to send our migrants their and nowhere else - it is a Safe Country. But they are dishonest, so we can't trust then, and we usually allow asylum claims from Rwandans because it is an unsafe country.
Yep. Solid logic there.
Critically, those 100k fines need to apply to the gig economy, especially places like Uber and JustEat.
However the one tweak is that the BBC has a policy that high profile personalities shouldn’t make controversial political comments.
He’s basically told BBC management to do one
May be he can get away with it (despite previous form) but it’s not a good look
Indeed I don’t do elaborate tax avoidance on my much humbler wages. I’m a freelance dildo knapper and I pay my due and legal tax. That’s it
We agreed as that was already clearly shown as our intention in the plans we had submitted.
The trafficking gangs are not just a couple of blokes working as crap illegal travel agents. They have their foot soldiers on the ground like the low level dealers and if they get picked up then they know nothing useful and get replaced quickly.
They are also “closed groups” in a way that drugs gangs aren’t - so if you have a trafficking group of Albanians they are super close knit and it’s very hard to get either an undercover officer into them or turn someone in the gang. At least with drugs gangs they take in waifs and strays from all backgrounds.
So it’s easier to remove their customers and whatever your views on the current gov plan it would probably have more effect if they littered the whole area the customers are with huge joint UK/French gov billboards, targeted social media ads etc pointing out the brutal new laws that if you go “illegally” then you are screwed. Eventually the message seeps through that it’s not worth spending the £3k you struggled for to get flown off to Rwanda and never be allowed in the UK again.
And as for safe routes for people to apply through, good luck getting a mayor in France to allow such a centre in his town as the locals will go nuts at the prospect of potentially thousands of people heading their way to apply for a golden ticket.
2) - Safe routes in France would see tens of thousands more attending while the boats still arrive
.
3) - People smugglers are being arrested in the UK and of course the dinghies are not here in UK warehouses but across Europe which requires European police to arrest
4) - Rwanda scheme is unlimited
I support stopping the boats now and have explained how this is stark but also part of Sunak’s approach which will see close engagement with Macron to stop the boats in France and hopefully deal with the supply of dinghies which largely come from Germany
As for the Rwandan government, they're acting in their own interest. Like any government. It wouldn't be in their own interest to admit a plan to accept tens of thousands if such a plan existed. Get consent for the small plan, then ramp it up.
“Matt Hancock was censored by the Cabinet Office over his concerns that the Covid-19 pandemic began with a lab leak in Wuhan, The Lockdown Files reveal. The former health secretary was told to tone down claims in his book, Pandemic Diaries, because the Government feared it would "cause problems" with China.
“Mr Hancock wanted to say that the Chinese explanation - that the virus being discovered close to a government science lab in Wuhan was coincidental - "just doesn't fly". But, in correspondence from late last year, the Cabinet Office told him that the Government's position was that the original outbreak's location was "entirely coincidental". Mr Hancock was warned that to differ from this narrative, which resembles China's version of events, risked "damaging national security". You can read the full investigation on our website.”
- Telegraph
She is wearing a "BDSM" necklace a la Liz Truss.
Are we sure we were right about that one.
And I see you can't describe the impact in terms of number of claims. A party expecting to be the next government should be able to estimate the impact of its approach.
You, of course, are trying to distract from this by throwing out insults every few sentences in the hope of getting a reaction. Unfortunately, this is projection on your behalf that I suffer from the same insecurities that you do, which I do not.
They would have to terminate the contact with his production company.
*An issue being litigated by HMRC
Voting intention now C,L,LD,G,S,R/UKIP 31,47,8,5,4,5, then 26,51,9,4,4,5. So on headline terms +5 C, -4 L (noise for the others).
Comparing movement in 2019 votes (page 2 of the pdfs)
C voters in 2019 now: 68% C, 19% L, 3% LD, 8% R, 2% G. Then 61% C, 28% L, 3% LD, 6% R. So the Rishi movement in 2019 conservative voters is clawring 10% back from L whilst losing some to Reform and Green.
Not much movement in Labour voters in 2019 (less leakage to G) but still only around 2% switchers to C. So Rishi does not provide greater appeal to L 2019 voters.
With the LD 2019 vote, a better retention now for the 2019 votes with less transfering to Labour, but more transfering to Greens.
This is only one snapshot, and does not include don't knows which are an important factor.
But this suggests that the main Rishi effect has been to reduce the number of C to L switchers, with little impact on the LD/C movement.
However the problems are refugees have to take very dangerous and expensive journeys to get here, we are hopelessly inefficient at processing them and the process strengthens organised crime and weakens our courts, so reform is still needed, just not the pretend reforms the govt is proposing.
My understanding, and I may be wrong, but the issue is over whether he is a BBC employee or freelancer.
If my assumption is right how does he differ from you? Are you going to volunteer to become a Spectator employee or are you going to enjoy your freelance status? As I believe you should.
What he earns is irrelevant. What matters is whether he is avoiding tax. You have taken it upon yourself to find him guilty of that and of using tax avoidance schemes, which is far from obvious.
You jump to conclusions a lot. Potentially you are no different to him in your tax status, yet you find him guilty of tax avoidance.
And of course, once we had our "fair share" that would not be the end of it. The 5m would all have uncles and cousins that would want to be here and many would end up in Calais. The left would be arguing for them to come based on family connections too.
The right approach is for refugees to be hosted as close as possible to the site of origin, and for the international community to step up to fund these places properly. Exceptions of people likely to still be persecuted in these camps, such as Yazidis, gay people etc, we should bring here and let in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danuta_Hübner
The French have not moved to do anything about people buying the boats for cash. This is because it is a flourishing business to sell boats to smugglers. Why would politicians fuck up their people making money?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/32fb0d74-be4d-11ed-8959-aac6a1130ac2?shareToken=c574be5b5f79e6fc6b3e404fd7934936
This came in handy when Livingstone accused him of tax dodging, in the campaign for mayor. Amusingly, Livingstone used a limited company for his own media stuff - he torpedoed himself.
Why Boris did this is a question. It was before the MPs expenses scandal.
The process is documented here - https://youtu.be/2t_wrtyxFp8