'FIONA Bruce will step back from her role as a domestic abuse charity ambassador after claims she trivialised domestic abuse.
The Question Time presenter faced fierce backlash after she appeared to minimise accusations of domestic abuse levelled against Stanely Johnson, the father of Boris Johnson.
During a segment on the BBC show last week, when it was pointed out Stanley Johnson had once been accused of breaking his ex-wife's nose, Bruce said it had only happened once.'
I do not watch QT but that is terrible
It's worth reading the piece - on the best interpretation it's the BBC attempt to get balance - but as we all know from e.g. the BBC and climate change deniers [edit] the BBC's idea of balance is sometimes the kind where an interview with the head of some pro-child organization has seemingly to be balanced with having Jimmy Saville on the same interview to give the BBC style balance. .
And even on that interpretation this is an odd explanation (as quoted) from the BBC as it implies Ms Bruce had already sought a right of reply in advance:
'"When serious allegations are made on air against people or organisations, it is the job of BBC presenters to ensure that the context of those allegations – and any right of reply from the person or organisation – is given to the audience, and this is what Fiona Bruce was doing on [March 9].
"She was not expressing any personal opinion about the situation."'
Probably just misspoke but it came out very oddly.
I don't get it though. He broke his wife's nose. That isn't denied. So calling him a wife-beater isn't something which needs to be debated or counter-balanced. He put her in hospital.
Doesn't make logical sense. On at least one interpretation the BBC comes out as officially condoning "wifebeating (well, just the once is OK)" or at least seeming to think it is an acceptable position to hold in public discourse. But then none of the interpretastions make sense. I think she just misspoke disastrously.
I have rewatched the clip. Panellist says in passing that Stanley Johnson was a "wife-beater on record". Ken Clarke raises both eyebrows and Fiona Bruce waves her arms wildly to stop the conversation. She says: "I'm not disputing what you're saying, but just so that everyone knows what this is referring to" and then paraphrases what Mrs Johnson had said to a journalist, that Stanley hadn't commented on it publicly, "friends of his have said that it did happen, but it was a one-off" complete with a dismissive wave of the hand At which point the panellist completes the event with "but it did happen"
As Stanley Johnson has neither denied it, nor has offered any statement to the contrary in his defence, this does seem to be "on record" as the panellist said. So why does Bruce need to give him a virtual right of reply?
"But it was a one-off" is the phrase that pays. Yes he beat his wife, but it was a one-off. Yes I murdered someone, but it was a one-off. Yes I committed bestiality, but it was a one-off.
And the wider context? They were debating a question about how on earth the Tories have created a system where all kinds of crooks and charlatans can be nominated for awards. So her defence of his one-off wife beating was literally in defence of him being nominated for a Knighthood by his son.
When I watched it I thought it was all quite odd and my suspicion is that the BBC knew Yasmin Alibhai-Brown was going to raise this and BBC legal had probably given FB a form of words to say as it felt quite scripted from FB.
Labour lead is twenty-three points in latest results from Deltapoll. Con 27% (-4) Lab 50% (+3) Lib Dem 9% (+1) Other 15% (+1) Fieldwork: 10th - 13th March 2023 Sample: 1,561 GB adults (Changes from 2nd - 6th March 2023)
If for real, that’s an awful poll for the Tories, but it’s claiming fieldwork today?
If other firms follow suit, the “clear blue water between Tory and Labour on unfettered illegal immigration” push from Tory’s has dramatically blown up in their faces 😟
This is not about small boats. Only a few right wing Tory obsessives care about small boats. This is now much bigger than that. It's about whether the NASTY PARTY is back and what the public make of it.
Everyone should care about stopping the boats and drowning of adults and children
Only yesterday dozens drowned in the Mediterranean off Italy
Indeed Macron highlighted this issue as a European one and that the UK and Europe will cooperate on
Our family have lost loved ones at sea and in two cases their bodies were not recovered
There’s a reason traditional Guernsey jumpers were knitted with individual patterns unique to each fisherman - after a couple of days in the sea it’s often the only way a body is readily identifiable.
My wife says that all her aunts had their own patterns that they put into their 'gansey's for their husband's and they would have recognised their own work
My wife's father had 8 brothers all Lossiemouth fishermen, 2 sisters, and 2 died in infancy
Its a bit of an urban myth that bodies recovered at sea would be identified by the gansey patterns. There is no recorded incident of it happening, although there are stories of people recognising work (not on dead bodies).
Given that the stories I've heard were from residents of the Shetlands - urban myth isn't quite correct.
I think 'urban' is not being used in the context of town/city in the phrase 'urban legend/myth'.
The fact that no one was actually recognised from their jersey doesn't stop people from making jerseys which would make that possible. It's a bit like prayer!
True, but its an oft repeated tale that has no basis. Different knitters had their patterns, but not for the reason of identifying their dead loved ones...
I have a grudging respect for some of the BBC's output, but they will never be repesentative of the common people. I remember their programme on Question Time from Boston discussing Brexit just before the referendum.
God knows how they chose the participants. It looked like they were heading for a massive Yes vote. I wondered if I'd been going in the wrong pubs. No, they'd invented a phantom instead - it was 76% Leave.
I know I'm an old lefty, but some of the comments that are being made about those poor souls who are trying to cross the Channel in small boats horrify me. And I felt the same when the Uganda nations came here.
I'm particularly horrified when people like Sunak and Patel fail to recognise that they could've been in a similar position had not many of us ignored the far right a few years ago and welcomed them into our country.
How cheering to come back to a post like that. Many of us look forward to the days when we can live and let live and the Linekers in this country can start to outnumber the shits and the nasties. Maybe we're due for a hippy revival.
They are quite happy in their bubble. It should be noted that there's a clear majority in the country who didn't agree with what Lineker said, even if some of them also think he should be free to say it unhindered.
I for one believe Mortimer, I just don't think his pub poll is likely to be that representative. Anymore than my (somewhat leftie) bookclub would be.
We are all in our own bubbles to a large degree. That's what makes PB so fascinating - we get to argue/debate with people of vehemently different views.
Well the clientele are apparently "local farming types who think Clarkson would do a better job on MOTD".
Mine's a SWIFT half!
Who can forget Clarkson's incredible footballing career? Incredible he's not in the pundit chair already with all those England caps to his name.
'FIONA Bruce will step back from her role as a domestic abuse charity ambassador after claims she trivialised domestic abuse.
The Question Time presenter faced fierce backlash after she appeared to minimise accusations of domestic abuse levelled against Stanely Johnson, the father of Boris Johnson.
During a segment on the BBC show last week, when it was pointed out Stanley Johnson had once been accused of breaking his ex-wife's nose, Bruce said it had only happened once.'
I do not watch QT but that is terrible
It's worth reading the piece - on the best interpretation it's the BBC attempt to get balance - but as we all know from e.g. the BBC and climate change deniers [edit] the BBC's idea of balance is sometimes the kind where an interview with the head of some pro-child organization has seemingly to be balanced with having Jimmy Saville on the same interview to give the BBC style balance. .
And even on that interpretation this is an odd explanation (as quoted) from the BBC as it implies Ms Bruce had already sought a right of reply in advance:
'"When serious allegations are made on air against people or organisations, it is the job of BBC presenters to ensure that the context of those allegations – and any right of reply from the person or organisation – is given to the audience, and this is what Fiona Bruce was doing on [March 9].
"She was not expressing any personal opinion about the situation."'
Probably just misspoke but it came out very oddly.
I don't get it though. He broke his wife's nose. That isn't denied. So calling him a wife-beater isn't something which needs to be debated or counter-balanced. He put her in hospital.
Doesn't make logical sense. On at least one interpretation the BBC comes out as officially condoning "wifebeating (well, just the once is OK)" or at least seeming to think it is an acceptable position to hold in public discourse. But then none of the interpretastions make sense. I think she just misspoke disastrously.
I have rewatched the clip. Panellist says in passing that Stanley Johnson was a "wife-beater on record". Ken Clarke raises both eyebrows and Fiona Bruce waves her arms wildly to stop the conversation. She says: "I'm not disputing what you're saying, but just so that everyone knows what this is referring to" and then paraphrases what Mrs Johnson had said to a journalist, that Stanley hadn't commented on it publicly, "friends of his have said that it did happen, but it was a one-off" complete with a dismissive wave of the hand At which point the panellist completes the event with "but it did happen"
As Stanley Johnson has neither denied it, nor has offered any statement to the contrary in his defence, this does seem to be "on record" as the panellist said. So why does Bruce need to give him a virtual right of reply?
"But it was a one-off" is the phrase that pays. Yes he beat his wife, but it was a one-off. Yes I murdered someone, but it was a one-off. Yes I committed bestiality, but it was a one-off.
And the wider context? They were debating a question about how on earth the Tories have created a system where all kinds of crooks and charlatans can be nominated for awards. So her defence of his one-off wife beating was literally in defence of him being nominated for a Knighthood by his son.
When I watched it I thought it was all quite odd and my suspicion is that the BBC knew Yasmin Alibhai-Brown was going to raise this and BBC legal had probably given FB a form of words to say as it felt quite scripted from FB.
If true, further indication that BBC management is clueless. All she needed to say for context, if anything at all, is that an allegation was made against him which he has not denied.
Bruce and/or her managers evidently not worth their salaries.
There are no safe and legal routes to the UK available to the vast majority of those crossing on boats now .
So effectively asylum is now off the table for many who would have passed the threshold for that . The bill regardless of what no 10 have lied about does allow for the detention and deportation of children.
And this bill is being pushed as compassionate and moral ! One wonders what yardstick this government is using !
I suppose we should be grateful they weren’t put against a wall and shot !
We're not going to get the international cooperation we need to actually deal with small boats if we make claiming asylum impossible for anyone arriving here by irregular means while failing to provide safe routes for them. It's this lack of safe routes that very clearly signals what the government is after here is a political dividing line, not a solution.
'FIONA Bruce will step back from her role as a domestic abuse charity ambassador after claims she trivialised domestic abuse.
The Question Time presenter faced fierce backlash after she appeared to minimise accusations of domestic abuse levelled against Stanely Johnson, the father of Boris Johnson.
During a segment on the BBC show last week, when it was pointed out Stanley Johnson had once been accused of breaking his ex-wife's nose, Bruce said it had only happened once.'
I do not watch QT but that is terrible
It's worth reading the piece - on the best interpretation it's the BBC attempt to get balance - but as we all know from e.g. the BBC and climate change deniers [edit] the BBC's idea of balance is sometimes the kind where an interview with the head of some pro-child organization has seemingly to be balanced with having Jimmy Saville on the same interview to give the BBC style balance. .
And even on that interpretation this is an odd explanation (as quoted) from the BBC as it implies Ms Bruce had already sought a right of reply in advance:
'"When serious allegations are made on air against people or organisations, it is the job of BBC presenters to ensure that the context of those allegations – and any right of reply from the person or organisation – is given to the audience, and this is what Fiona Bruce was doing on [March 9].
"She was not expressing any personal opinion about the situation."'
Probably just misspoke but it came out very oddly.
I don't get it though. He broke his wife's nose. That isn't denied. So calling him a wife-beater isn't something which needs to be debated or counter-balanced. He put her in hospital.
Doesn't make logical sense. On at least one interpretation the BBC comes out as officially condoning "wifebeating (well, just the once is OK)" or at least seeming to think it is an acceptable position to hold in public discourse. But then none of the interpretastions make sense. I think she just misspoke disastrously.
I have rewatched the clip. Panellist says in passing that Stanley Johnson was a "wife-beater on record". Ken Clarke raises both eyebrows and Fiona Bruce waves her arms wildly to stop the conversation. She says: "I'm not disputing what you're saying, but just so that everyone knows what this is referring to" and then paraphrases what Mrs Johnson had said to a journalist, that Stanley hadn't commented on it publicly, "friends of his have said that it did happen, but it was a one-off" complete with a dismissive wave of the hand At which point the panellist completes the event with "but it did happen"
As Stanley Johnson has neither denied it, nor has offered any statement to the contrary in his defence, this does seem to be "on record" as the panellist said. So why does Bruce need to give him a virtual right of reply?
"But it was a one-off" is the phrase that pays. Yes he beat his wife, but it was a one-off. Yes I murdered someone, but it was a one-off. Yes I committed bestiality, but it was a one-off.
And the wider context? They were debating a question about how on earth the Tories have created a system where all kinds of crooks and charlatans can be nominated for awards. So her defence of his one-off wife beating was literally in defence of him being nominated for a Knighthood by his son.
When I watched it I thought it was all quite odd and my suspicion is that the BBC knew Yasmin Alibhai-Brown was going to raise this and BBC legal had probably given FB a form of words to say as it felt quite scripted from FB.
If true, further indication that BBC management is clueless. All she needed to say for context, if anything at all, is that an allegation was made against him which he has not denied.
Bruce and/or her managers evidently not worth their salaries.
I mean I could be wrong but it certainly felt like FB had a pre-prepared response to what YAB was going to say. And that would be down to the programme makkers rather than FB herself IMO.
But like I say that was just my interpretation so I could be wrong. It certainly came across as being an odd moment though.
Edit: When FB said "his [friends] say it only happened once" I thought I can't believe she just said that.
Surely providing more safe and legal routes would help lower the amount of boat crossings . They’re now saying until the boats are stopped there won’t be any new safe and legal routes .
That isn't true at all. The more people that come via any route, the more pull it creates for future migrants via any route. This was demonstrated extremely clearly with Merkel. There isn't a fixed amount of potential migrants that can come given the huge chunk of the world in warzones or dictatorships.
Making it easier for people to come cheaply and safely would cause more people to come expensively and unsafely? - I'm not convinced of that logic.
Seattle Times ($) - Warning: More airline fees are on the way
Travel Troubleshooter When it comes to airline fees, what will they think of next?
Passengers like Gregg Jaden think they’ve seen the future, and they don’t like it. On a recent flight from Bali, Indonesia, to Bangkok, he tried to board with an overweight bag.
He says Thai Airways demanded $500 for an extra 40 pounds of luggage.
“My flight only cost $150,” says Jaden, a photographer from Manhattan Beach, California. “I was forced to pay or miss my flight.”
He suspects airlines are trying something new. He says Thai Airways made it difficult to pay for overweight luggage in advance. Then, when he got to the airport, the carrier set a high luggage fee it knew passengers would have no choice but to pay. Call it dynamic luggage fees. . . .
Airlines are busy thinking about how to earn more profit in 2023, and from the looks of it, they plan to do it the old-fashioned way: by charging fees. The extras range from luggage surcharges to creative change fees.
The average airline fee rose to an all-time high of $128 per ticket this year, according to research by travel management company Navan (formerly TripActions). That’s $42 higher than the same period a year ago. “They’re certainly the highest I’ve seen them,” says Danny Finkel, Navan’s chief commercial officer.
Airline fees continue on their upward trajectory, and most experts predict they will soar this year. . .
Jaden says the circumstances of his $500 trap seemed suspicious. He knew his bag was overweight and tried to pay for his luggage fees online. But the airline didn’t offer an option for overweight luggage. When he arrived at the airport, he says it appeared as if a ticket agent pulled a price out of thin air, believing he would have no choice but to pay. When an agent told Jaden how much it would cost, he also removed his name badge, making it harder for Jaden to file a formal complaint. . . .
One thing is certain: Luggage fees will be big in 2023. Airlines collected a record $20.9 billion last year in baggage fees, according to a report from IdeaWorks, a company that tracks airline fees. They’re paying particular attention to carry-on fees. For example, Aer Lingus has a “saver” fare in Europe that includes a checked bag but excludes a large carry-on. And airasia will allow you to double the size of your 15-pound carry-on — for a price. . . .
Here’s a new kind of fee Ariana Fiorello-Omotosho saw this summer, and it could become big. When an airline cancels a flight, it owes you either a full refund or a flight of its choosing. Most passengers just want to get to their destination as planned, so they accept the new flight.
But what if the airline can’t or won’t put them on the next flight? What if they tell them they can’t send them to their destination for a few more days, or weeks — unless they pay extra? . . . .
Airlines profiting from their own cancellations? What’ll they think of next?
There are no safe and legal routes to the UK available to the vast majority of those crossing on boats now .
So effectively asylum is now off the table for many who would have passed the threshold for that . The bill regardless of what no 10 have lied about does allow for the detention and deportation of children.
And this bill is being pushed as compassionate and moral ! One wonders what yardstick this government is using !
I suppose we should be grateful they weren’t put against a wall and shot !
We're not going to get the international cooperation we need to actually deal with small boats if we make claiming asylum impossible for anyone arriving here by irregular means while failing to provide safe routes for them. It's this lack of safe routes that very clearly signals what the government is after here is a political dividing line, not a solution.
Yep.
And of course they don’t want to do so because they don’t want to spend the money on establishing the schemes and putting in place the infrastructure.
Because that will demonstrate that they have hollowed out the system and they are now having to overspend to put it in decent shape.
And they don’t have time before they are going to be thrown into a GE campaign. And the reason they don’t have time is because of the said hollowing out.
'FIONA Bruce will step back from her role as a domestic abuse charity ambassador after claims she trivialised domestic abuse.
The Question Time presenter faced fierce backlash after she appeared to minimise accusations of domestic abuse levelled against Stanely Johnson, the father of Boris Johnson.
During a segment on the BBC show last week, when it was pointed out Stanley Johnson had once been accused of breaking his ex-wife's nose, Bruce said it had only happened once.'
I do not watch QT but that is terrible
It's worth reading the piece - on the best interpretation it's the BBC attempt to get balance - but as we all know from e.g. the BBC and climate change deniers [edit] the BBC's idea of balance is sometimes the kind where an interview with the head of some pro-child organization has seemingly to be balanced with having Jimmy Saville on the same interview to give the BBC style balance. .
And even on that interpretation this is an odd explanation (as quoted) from the BBC as it implies Ms Bruce had already sought a right of reply in advance:
'"When serious allegations are made on air against people or organisations, it is the job of BBC presenters to ensure that the context of those allegations – and any right of reply from the person or organisation – is given to the audience, and this is what Fiona Bruce was doing on [March 9].
"She was not expressing any personal opinion about the situation."'
Probably just misspoke but it came out very oddly.
I don't get it though. He broke his wife's nose. That isn't denied. So calling him a wife-beater isn't something which needs to be debated or counter-balanced. He put her in hospital.
Doesn't make logical sense. On at least one interpretation the BBC comes out as officially condoning "wifebeating (well, just the once is OK)" or at least seeming to think it is an acceptable position to hold in public discourse. But then none of the interpretastions make sense. I think she just misspoke disastrously.
I have rewatched the clip. Panellist says in passing that Stanley Johnson was a "wife-beater on record". Ken Clarke raises both eyebrows and Fiona Bruce waves her arms wildly to stop the conversation. She says: "I'm not disputing what you're saying, but just so that everyone knows what this is referring to" and then paraphrases what Mrs Johnson had said to a journalist, that Stanley hadn't commented on it publicly, "friends of his have said that it did happen, but it was a one-off" complete with a dismissive wave of the hand At which point the panellist completes the event with "but it did happen"
As Stanley Johnson has neither denied it, nor has offered any statement to the contrary in his defence, this does seem to be "on record" as the panellist said. So why does Bruce need to give him a virtual right of reply?
"But it was a one-off" is the phrase that pays. Yes he beat his wife, but it was a one-off. Yes I murdered someone, but it was a one-off. Yes I committed bestiality, but it was a one-off.
And the wider context? They were debating a question about how on earth the Tories have created a system where all kinds of crooks and charlatans can be nominated for awards. So her defence of his one-off wife beating was literally in defence of him being nominated for a Knighthood by his son.
When I watched it I thought it was all quite odd and my suspicion is that the BBC knew Yasmin Alibhai-Brown was going to raise this and BBC legal had probably given FB a form of words to say as it felt quite scripted from FB.
If true, further indication that BBC management is clueless. All she needed to say for context, if anything at all, is that an allegation was made against him which he has not denied.
Bruce and/or her managers evidently not worth their salaries.
I mean I could be wrong but it certainly felt like FB had a pre-prepared response to what YAB was going to say. And that would be down to the programme makkers rather than FB herself IMO.
But like I say that was just my interpretation so I could be wrong. It certainly came across as being an odd moment though.
I agree it was scripted, but the producers were probably more concerned with a comment from the audience. There is no way that what YAB said could be deemed actionable.
Question - does BruceGate diminish the likelihood, that Stanley Johnson is actually gonna get knighted?
It should do - because in reality no PM who resigns in disgrace should have a resignation honours list.
I’d be quite happy to remove the words “who resigns in disgrace” from that sentence.
The whole concept to me screams “give a gong to your mates - you wont get the chance again”.
Certainly the mockery that Johnson (and Truss?) are making of the "honours" system would appear to be a fine opportunity to junk the entire clapped-out "resignation honours' racket?
'FIONA Bruce will step back from her role as a domestic abuse charity ambassador after claims she trivialised domestic abuse.
The Question Time presenter faced fierce backlash after she appeared to minimise accusations of domestic abuse levelled against Stanely Johnson, the father of Boris Johnson.
During a segment on the BBC show last week, when it was pointed out Stanley Johnson had once been accused of breaking his ex-wife's nose, Bruce said it had only happened once.'
I do not watch QT but that is terrible
It's worth reading the piece - on the best interpretation it's the BBC attempt to get balance - but as we all know from e.g. the BBC and climate change deniers [edit] the BBC's idea of balance is sometimes the kind where an interview with the head of some pro-child organization has seemingly to be balanced with having Jimmy Saville on the same interview to give the BBC style balance. .
And even on that interpretation this is an odd explanation (as quoted) from the BBC as it implies Ms Bruce had already sought a right of reply in advance:
'"When serious allegations are made on air against people or organisations, it is the job of BBC presenters to ensure that the context of those allegations – and any right of reply from the person or organisation – is given to the audience, and this is what Fiona Bruce was doing on [March 9].
"She was not expressing any personal opinion about the situation."'
Probably just misspoke but it came out very oddly.
I don't get it though. He broke his wife's nose. That isn't denied. So calling him a wife-beater isn't something which needs to be debated or counter-balanced. He put her in hospital.
Doesn't make logical sense. On at least one interpretation the BBC comes out as officially condoning "wifebeating (well, just the once is OK)" or at least seeming to think it is an acceptable position to hold in public discourse. But then none of the interpretastions make sense. I think she just misspoke disastrously.
I have rewatched the clip. Panellist says in passing that Stanley Johnson was a "wife-beater on record". Ken Clarke raises both eyebrows and Fiona Bruce waves her arms wildly to stop the conversation. She says: "I'm not disputing what you're saying, but just so that everyone knows what this is referring to" and then paraphrases what Mrs Johnson had said to a journalist, that Stanley hadn't commented on it publicly, "friends of his have said that it did happen, but it was a one-off" complete with a dismissive wave of the hand At which point the panellist completes the event with "but it did happen"
As Stanley Johnson has neither denied it, nor has offered any statement to the contrary in his defence, this does seem to be "on record" as the panellist said. So why does Bruce need to give him a virtual right of reply?
"But it was a one-off" is the phrase that pays. Yes he beat his wife, but it was a one-off. Yes I murdered someone, but it was a one-off. Yes I committed bestiality, but it was a one-off.
And the wider context? They were debating a question about how on earth the Tories have created a system where all kinds of crooks and charlatans can be nominated for awards. So her defence of his one-off wife beating was literally in defence of him being nominated for a Knighthood by his son.
I feel a bit for her because I don’t think she was actually trying to make excuses for him, I think she was caught in a tricky situation on live telly and panicked and she accidentally engaged the “both sides of the argument” brain when she should have just said something a bit non-committal and disclaimer-y.
I am pretty sure Fiona Bruce doesn't actually think it's OK to beat your partner only once. Therefore brain fart is the most likely explanation. I have been there a thousand times, but not in front of an audience of millions and on a topic so controversial!
There are no safe and legal routes to the UK available to the vast majority of those crossing on boats now .
So effectively asylum is now off the table for many who would have passed the threshold for that . The bill regardless of what no 10 have lied about does allow for the detention and deportation of children.
And this bill is being pushed as compassionate and moral ! One wonders what yardstick this government is using !
I suppose we should be grateful they weren’t put against a wall and shot !
We're not going to get the international cooperation we need to actually deal with small boats if we make claiming asylum impossible for anyone arriving here by irregular means while failing to provide safe routes for them. It's this lack of safe routes that very clearly signals what the government is after here is a political dividing line, not a solution.
Yep.
And of course they don’t want to do so because they don’t want to spend the money on establishing the schemes and putting in place the infrastructure.
Because that will demonstrate that they have hollowed out the system and they are now having to overspend to put it in decent shape.
And they don’t have time before they are going to be thrown into a GE campaign. And the reason they don’t have time is because of the said hollowing out.
'FIONA Bruce will step back from her role as a domestic abuse charity ambassador after claims she trivialised domestic abuse.
The Question Time presenter faced fierce backlash after she appeared to minimise accusations of domestic abuse levelled against Stanely Johnson, the father of Boris Johnson.
During a segment on the BBC show last week, when it was pointed out Stanley Johnson had once been accused of breaking his ex-wife's nose, Bruce said it had only happened once.'
I do not watch QT but that is terrible
It's worth reading the piece - on the best interpretation it's the BBC attempt to get balance - but as we all know from e.g. the BBC and climate change deniers [edit] the BBC's idea of balance is sometimes the kind where an interview with the head of some pro-child organization has seemingly to be balanced with having Jimmy Saville on the same interview to give the BBC style balance. .
And even on that interpretation this is an odd explanation (as quoted) from the BBC as it implies Ms Bruce had already sought a right of reply in advance:
'"When serious allegations are made on air against people or organisations, it is the job of BBC presenters to ensure that the context of those allegations – and any right of reply from the person or organisation – is given to the audience, and this is what Fiona Bruce was doing on [March 9].
"She was not expressing any personal opinion about the situation."'
Probably just misspoke but it came out very oddly.
I don't get it though. He broke his wife's nose. That isn't denied. So calling him a wife-beater isn't something which needs to be debated or counter-balanced. He put her in hospital.
Jesus, he broke her nose and put her in hospital. That is disgraceful and there is no way he should be getting any honour on that basis.
I didn’t think he merited anything prior to this anyway so it does not change my mind. But no excuses. He is clearly a wife beater and Fiona Bruce handled it badly too.
There are no safe and legal routes to the UK available to the vast majority of those crossing on boats now .
So effectively asylum is now off the table for many who would have passed the threshold for that . The bill regardless of what no 10 have lied about does allow for the detention and deportation of children.
And this bill is being pushed as compassionate and moral ! One wonders what yardstick this government is using !
I suppose we should be grateful they weren’t put against a wall and shot !
Yesterday dozens drowned in the Mediterranean off the coast of Italy
This is a Europe wide problem as Macron specifically referring to it and that the UK and EU are to address the crisis that is engulfing the continent
Safe routes is an ideal if you are willing to have unlimited immigration but opening a safe route in France or Calais would de overwhelmed and still they would come by the boats
There are no safe and legal routes to the UK available to the vast majority of those crossing on boats now .
So effectively asylum is now off the table for many who would have passed the threshold for that . The bill regardless of what no 10 have lied about does allow for the detention and deportation of children.
And this bill is being pushed as compassionate and moral ! One wonders what yardstick this government is using !
I suppose we should be grateful they weren’t put against a wall and shot !
We're not going to get the international cooperation we need to actually deal with small boats if we make claiming asylum impossible for anyone arriving here by irregular means while failing to provide safe routes for them. It's this lack of safe routes that very clearly signals what the government is after here is a political dividing line, not a solution.
The trouble any UK government will have on this is that a number of European countries take a much higher number of refugees than the UK and so won't want to cooperate in a system that doesn't involve the UK taking "its fair share".
And more generally the system is riddled with almost intractable issues, because most countries seem to be both reluctant to receive large numbers of asylum seekers themselves, and keen to uphold the principles of the UN convention on refugees.
We could really do with one very large and welcoming country deciding that for demographic reasons it desperately needs immigration, like the USA did in the 19th century, and becoming the preferred safe haven for refugees as well as a destination for economic migration in the millions or tens of millions. Such a country would stand to become a superpower. There are countries where the demographics ought to suggest this (Russia and Belarus for a start) but they are not exactly appealing as safe havens, nor do they actually want migrants. Canada is probably the best candidate in terms of productive land area plus high economic development and experience with diverse populations.
For all their faults the countries that get closest to this kind of model, albeit with poor records on human and economic rights, are the gulf states.
Political discourse in this country is depressing and has been for some time.
I wish we could have a rational discussion, e.g (a) it is a sensible objective to stop illegal and dangerous border crossings (b) that the country needs an immigration system that is rigorous, fair and consistent (c) that we need to do our fair bit to help those fleeing persecution overseas (d) that people fleeing persecution deserve to be welcomed and given the necessary resources to help them contribute to our society and (e) we need to listen to communities and work together to allow greater integration, collaboration and support, without this being either 1. Right wing reactionary racism or 2. Lefty liberal bleeding heart wokeness.
But then I’m a centrist at heart, probably, and maybe this is the cross I just have to bear!
Raving loony centrists sadly tend to get blotted out. You have to pick a side these days. That's pretty easy for me but I do feel for those less naturally aligned one way or the other.
I was just reflecting something similar to @numbertwelve (though I think I'm more on the left than they are).
TLDR; we need to accept more migrants to protect our own way of life, but to do so we need policies within UK that protect the poor who too often bear the brunt of migration.
A few thoughts: - Having listened carefully to the arguments, I think we do need to stop the boats. Not because people are dying, sad though that is, but because the boats are creating a deeply unfair imbalance in who can get to UK (those who can make the arduous and illegal journey, as opposed to those in most need). -There are 100 million displaced people around the world currently. I've had personal experience of what that means for e.g. Turkey (I was in Reyhanli soon after the start of the Syrian civil war, when pretty much overnight it became a 50% Syrian town). Whilst I have sympathy for the argument that it is culturally challenging to accept lots of migrants into UK, I can find no moral justification for why UK should be protected from this cultural upheaval but Turkey, Lebanon, Germany, Uganda etc. should have to bear it. Which leads me to conclude we need to find a way to accept a fair share of displaced people into our country. - @Pagan2 is someone on here whose poitical views I listen carefully to, even though we are at either sides of the left-right spectrum. I think Pagan is correct to say that if we continue down the path we are currently on, the logical outcome is fortress Britain (I think the film Children of Men is not far from what we can expect). I don't want to live in a world like that, and I don't want to bring my kids up into that world. Profoundly so. I think we have to make a choice as to whether we want the end result of global movement of people to be fortress Britain, or the painful compromises that come from taking many, many more migrants into UK. I don't think there is another option. - It is a morally and practically important fact that the UK is far more wealthy than most nations on earth. I'd argue a significant part of each of our wealth today is directly as a result of exploitative global trade arragements, particularly during the heiight of empire. But even if you dispute that, I find it very hard to make a moral case for why any of us should be prosperous and comfortable enought to e.g. heat our homes simply because of the accident of where we are born. - It is of course a very thorny political issue as to how we acknowledge the point I have just made, without forcing poorer people in UK to bear the brunt of the good intentions of richer people like me. Therefore the global issue bleeds into our national politics (and for me personally a deep lack of respect for those who are personally wealth and seek to avoid e.g. paying tax). We need to design UK policy to protect both those who are poorer here, and those who arrive on our shores. This isn't easy, but the alternative (fortress Britain) is, I believe, far worse.
A very good and considered post and I agree with the broad thrust of it (it is true I would say I am historically more on the centre right than centre left).
Your point on supporting poorer people particularly chimes with me. This is something that a lot of the sound and fury of the debate conveniently leaves out - on the right because it means spending money, on the left because it is easier to infer bad intentions from someone raising genuine concerns.
Indeed I would say one of the greatest faults of the 2010-2015 government was dismantling a number of local community services ostensibly on cost efficiency grounds whereas what would have been better would have been to look at what was being delivered and how it could be better used to achieve ambitions such as these, without being too constrained by government control once established. This was particularly unfortunate given Cameron’s (I believe genuine) views around the big society - a widely mocked concept but one that had the right underpinnings to it.
Yep - talking about the Big Society while cutting off everything that could support it (Surestart, libraries even) wasn't a good plan.
I will start by saying that I have no qualms on government spending on such items if they make sense. Sadly however because of how politicians of all sides prefer in implementation we often really never know.
We should be demanding a lot more of the following
This is how much it will cost This is what it is designed to achieve This is how we will measure it This is the timescale to get to those results
Then we can drop things if they turn out not to be producing the value claimed for the money. We also need to have those measurements published by someone like ONS so the figures don't get twisted.
An example of this is SureStart....I have heard both it helped poor people and contrariwise that it was mostly used as cheap child care by middle classes and the poor didn't use it in numbers.
Which is true? Damned if I know....somethings will work beyond expectations, somethings won't live upto the hype but unless they are measured against the reasons for doing them how can we know which to expand and which to ditch?
This is an interesting one.
You are right of course that when working with finite resource and public funds there is a pressure to show demonstrable outcomes. However I think to fixate too much on this requires too much interventionism and inflexibility.
I can agree that the government should be a facilitator of community services. As someone who has that centre-right belief in personal agency and accountability and is a bit suspicious of top-down directives and micromanagement, I believe the people who run those services are the ones who have the best knowledge of their local communities and how they are engaged and best supported. Yes there needs to be some sort of metric to measure funding formulae (attendance is usually the bluntest but easiest tool), but a lot of the benefits of these services are much harder to measure - e.g a successful youth service might help in reducing anti social behaviour, but it is hard to make the jump from X to Y.
I think I come down on the side of periodic audits, more than anything else.
I am certainly not suggesting micromanagement here. Merely asking why are you doing this and how are you going to establish it is doing what you claimed so we can decide if it is doing the job or not. If what you suggested isn't doing the job then it is surely better to know that and can it and use the money for something else than keep chucking money at it for no return.
Too many of these schemes come with a lot of nebulous language about what they are meant to achieve and are just assumed to be working it seems to me.
To give an example take a hypothetical adult literacy scheme. Currently we would just get some waffle about giving funding to local authorities to run a course to improve literacy in their area. Funding 500 mill countrywide.
Wouldn't it be better if they had a target of reducing adult illiteracy by say 30%. If the proposed scheme then only reduces it by 1% then we can look and say well is that 1% reduction worth spending half a billion on or should we look at a way of reducing it with a better scheme and send the funding to that?
The way our government work currently (both sides) we would just continue funding it because we would just get quotes from ministers about the wondrous improvement in the life chances of the illiterate. Then the next lot would come in and can it because it wasn't their idea and the originators would be whining about how dare they abolish a brilliant scheme. In truth no one knew if it was a brilliant scheme or not because no one actually went and measured the outcome.
Surestart is an example of the above as far as I can see, cost a fair amount, no actual measurements to show if it was worth it for the money spent or not. Maybe it was maybe it wasn't. Simple fact is no one really seems to know
I know I'm an old lefty, but some of the comments that are being made about those poor souls who are trying to cross the Channel in small boats horrify me. And I felt the same when the Uganda nations came here.
I'm particularly horrified when people like Sunak and Patel fail to recognise that they could've been in a similar position had not many of us ignored the far right a few years ago and welcomed them into our country.
How cheering to come back to a post like that. Many of us look forward to the days when we can live and let live and the Linekers in this country can start to outnumber the shits and the nasties. Maybe we're due for a hippy revival.
There are no safe and legal routes to the UK available to the vast majority of those crossing on boats now .
So effectively asylum is now off the table for many who would have passed the threshold for that . The bill regardless of what no 10 have lied about does allow for the detention and deportation of children.
And this bill is being pushed as compassionate and moral ! One wonders what yardstick this government is using !
I suppose we should be grateful they weren’t put against a wall and shot !
We're not going to get the international cooperation we need to actually deal with small boats if we make claiming asylum impossible for anyone arriving here by irregular means while failing to provide safe routes for them. It's this lack of safe routes that very clearly signals what the government is after here is a political dividing line, not a solution.
There's a fundamental divide, not a synthetic dividing line, about the nature of the problem.
To some people, it's purely an administrative issue and we should welcome as many people as possible as quickly as possible. To others, there is a structural issue with the asylum system because it wasn't designed for a world of 8 billion people and easy global travel, therefore we cannot afford to adopt the solutions that the first group would like to see implemented.
There are no safe and legal routes to the UK available to the vast majority of those crossing on boats now .
So effectively asylum is now off the table for many who would have passed the threshold for that . The bill regardless of what no 10 have lied about does allow for the detention and deportation of children.
And this bill is being pushed as compassionate and moral ! One wonders what yardstick this government is using !
I suppose we should be grateful they weren’t put against a wall and shot !
Yesterday dozens drowned in the Mediterranean off the coast of Italy
This is a Europe wide problem as Macron specifically referring to it and that the UK and EU are to address the crisis that is engulfing the continent
Safe routes is an ideal if you are willing to have unlimited immigration but opening a safe route in France or Calais would de overwhelmed and still they would come by the boats
"Safe routes is an ideal if you are willing to have unlimited immigration" Do you really mean that @Big_G_NorthWales? I always read what you write with interest on here, but this reads to me like you saying you don't think we should provide any safe and legal route for someone fleeing persecution to reach this country at all. Are you sure you mean that?
There are no safe and legal routes to the UK available to the vast majority of those crossing on boats now .
So effectively asylum is now off the table for many who would have passed the threshold for that . The bill regardless of what no 10 have lied about does allow for the detention and deportation of children.
And this bill is being pushed as compassionate and moral ! One wonders what yardstick this government is using !
I suppose we should be grateful they weren’t put against a wall and shot !
We're not going to get the international cooperation we need to actually deal with small boats if we make claiming asylum impossible for anyone arriving here by irregular means while failing to provide safe routes for them. It's this lack of safe routes that very clearly signals what the government is after here is a political dividing line, not a solution.
There's a fundamental divide, not a synthetic dividing line, about the nature of the problem.
To some people, it's purely an administrative issue and we should welcome as many people as possible as quickly as possible. To others, there is a structural issue with the asylum system because it wasn't designed for a world of 8 billion people and easy global travel, therefore we cannot afford to adopt the solutions that the first group would like to see implemented.
That's a false binary. To others we should have a globally agreed system by which we take what is agreed at the UN to be our fair share of genuine refugees, with a far better system for finding the cases of highest need coupled with proper systems to catch and deport those who try to work around that system (which many on here have described how to do).
I am further to the left than most on migration, and even I wouldn't say we should welcome as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
There are no safe and legal routes to the UK available to the vast majority of those crossing on boats now .
So effectively asylum is now off the table for many who would have passed the threshold for that . The bill regardless of what no 10 have lied about does allow for the detention and deportation of children.
And this bill is being pushed as compassionate and moral ! One wonders what yardstick this government is using !
I suppose we should be grateful they weren’t put against a wall and shot !
We're not going to get the international cooperation we need to actually deal with small boats if we make claiming asylum impossible for anyone arriving here by irregular means while failing to provide safe routes for them. It's this lack of safe routes that very clearly signals what the government is after here is a political dividing line, not a solution.
There's a fundamental divide, not a synthetic dividing line, about the nature of the problem.
To some people, it's purely an administrative issue and we should welcome as many people as possible as quickly as possible. To others, there is a structural issue with the asylum system because it wasn't designed for a world of 8 billion people and easy global travel, therefore we cannot afford to adopt the solutions that the first group would like to see implemented.
That's a false binary. To others we should have a globally agreed system by which we take what is agreed at the UN to be our fair share of genuine refugees, with a far better system for finding the cases of highest need coupled with proper systems to catch and deport those who try to work around that system (which many on here have described how to do).
I am further to the left than most on migration, and even I wouldn't say we should welcome as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
It's not a false binary. Plenty of people argue that we should "lead the world" on accepting asylum seekers.
There are no safe and legal routes to the UK available to the vast majority of those crossing on boats now .
So effectively asylum is now off the table for many who would have passed the threshold for that . The bill regardless of what no 10 have lied about does allow for the detention and deportation of children.
And this bill is being pushed as compassionate and moral ! One wonders what yardstick this government is using !
I suppose we should be grateful they weren’t put against a wall and shot !
We're not going to get the international cooperation we need to actually deal with small boats if we make claiming asylum impossible for anyone arriving here by irregular means while failing to provide safe routes for them. It's this lack of safe routes that very clearly signals what the government is after here is a political dividing line, not a solution.
There's a fundamental divide, not a synthetic dividing line, about the nature of the problem.
To some people, it's purely an administrative issue and we should welcome as many people as possible as quickly as possible. To others, there is a structural issue with the asylum system because it wasn't designed for a world of 8 billion people and easy global travel, therefore we cannot afford to adopt the solutions that the first group would like to see implemented.
That's a false binary. To others we should have a globally agreed system by which we take what is agreed at the UN to be our fair share of genuine refugees, with a far better system for finding the cases of highest need coupled with proper systems to catch and deport those who try to work around that system (which many on here have described how to do).
I am further to the left than most on migration, and even I wouldn't say we should welcome as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
It's not a false binary. Plenty of people argue that we should "lead the world" on accepting asylum seekers.
Ah, thanks for spotting my dead post on a dead thread (I'm always doing that).
Perhaps this is a misinterpretation then? I'd argue, that because of our levels of prosperity, and because of the historical reasons for our prosperity, we should lead the world on accepting asylum seekers. As I said on the last thread I cannot fathom how we can accept that Turkey and Lebanon are having their border towns utterly transformed by migration, and not be prepared to take some of the pressure off that.
But for me, leading the world on this would involve sticking our necks out and using the global power we have to try to create the globally agreed system I refer to.
I think you'll find very, very few who would argue for unlimited immigration.
There are no safe and legal routes to the UK available to the vast majority of those crossing on boats now .
So effectively asylum is now off the table for many who would have passed the threshold for that . The bill regardless of what no 10 have lied about does allow for the detention and deportation of children.
And this bill is being pushed as compassionate and moral ! One wonders what yardstick this government is using !
I suppose we should be grateful they weren’t put against a wall and shot !
We're not going to get the international cooperation we need to actually deal with small boats if we make claiming asylum impossible for anyone arriving here by irregular means while failing to provide safe routes for them. It's this lack of safe routes that very clearly signals what the government is after here is a political dividing line, not a solution.
There's a fundamental divide, not a synthetic dividing line, about the nature of the problem.
To some people, it's purely an administrative issue and we should welcome as many people as possible as quickly as possible. To others, there is a structural issue with the asylum system because it wasn't designed for a world of 8 billion people and easy global travel, therefore we cannot afford to adopt the solutions that the first group would like to see implemented.
That's a false binary. To others we should have a globally agreed system by which we take what is agreed at the UN to be our fair share of genuine refugees, with a far better system for finding the cases of highest need coupled with proper systems to catch and deport those who try to work around that system (which many on here have described how to do).
I am further to the left than most on migration, and even I wouldn't say we should welcome as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
It's not a false binary. Plenty of people argue that we should "lead the world" on accepting asylum seekers.
The first stop before even thinking about leading the world might be to stop abjectly trailing large parts of it.
Comments
Then again you are compliance so I can see why they might have ignored all your posts about how bad they are...
God knows how they chose the participants. It looked like they were heading for a massive Yes vote. I wondered if I'd been going in the wrong pubs. No, they'd invented a phantom instead - it was 76% Leave.
All she needed to say for context, if anything at all, is that an allegation was made against him which he has not denied.
Bruce and/or her managers evidently not worth their salaries.
As we say in the rugby club. "You shag one sheep ... "
No panic.
The whole concept to me screams “give a gong to your mates - you wont get the chance again”.
But like I say that was just my interpretation so I could be wrong. It certainly came across as being an odd moment though.
Edit: When FB said "his [friends] say it only happened once" I thought I can't believe she just said that.
"Will we ever solve the mystery of MH370?
A new Netflix documentary fails to ask the right questions
Thomas Fazi"
https://unherd.com/2023/03/will-we-ever-solve-the-mystery-of-mh370/
Travel Troubleshooter
When it comes to airline fees, what will they think of next?
Passengers like Gregg Jaden think they’ve seen the future, and they don’t like it. On a recent flight from Bali, Indonesia, to Bangkok, he tried to board with an overweight bag.
He says Thai Airways demanded $500 for an extra 40 pounds of luggage.
“My flight only cost $150,” says Jaden, a photographer from Manhattan Beach, California. “I was forced to pay or miss my flight.”
He suspects airlines are trying something new. He says Thai Airways made it difficult to pay for overweight luggage in advance. Then, when he got to the airport, the carrier set a high luggage fee it knew passengers would have no choice but to pay. Call it dynamic luggage fees. . . .
Airlines are busy thinking about how to earn more profit in 2023, and from the looks of it, they plan to do it the old-fashioned way: by charging fees. The extras range from luggage surcharges to creative change fees.
The average airline fee rose to an all-time high of $128 per ticket this year, according to research by travel management company Navan (formerly TripActions). That’s $42 higher than the same period a year ago. “They’re certainly the highest I’ve seen them,” says Danny Finkel, Navan’s chief commercial officer.
Airline fees continue on their upward trajectory, and most experts predict they will soar this year. . .
Jaden says the circumstances of his $500 trap seemed suspicious. He knew his bag was overweight and tried to pay for his luggage fees online. But the airline didn’t offer an option for overweight luggage. When he arrived at the airport, he says it appeared as if a ticket agent pulled a price out of thin air, believing he would have no choice but to pay. When an agent told Jaden how much it would cost, he also removed his name badge, making it harder for Jaden to file a formal complaint. . . .
One thing is certain: Luggage fees will be big in 2023. Airlines collected a record $20.9 billion last year in baggage fees, according to a report from IdeaWorks, a company that tracks airline fees. They’re paying particular attention to carry-on fees. For example, Aer Lingus has a “saver” fare in Europe that includes a checked bag but excludes a large carry-on. And airasia will allow you to double the size of your 15-pound carry-on — for a price. . . .
Here’s a new kind of fee Ariana Fiorello-Omotosho saw this summer, and it could become big. When an airline cancels a flight, it owes you either a full refund or a flight of its choosing. Most passengers just want to get to their destination as planned, so they accept the new flight.
But what if the airline can’t or won’t put them on the next flight? What if they tell them they can’t send them to their destination for a few more days, or weeks — unless they pay extra? . . . .
Airlines profiting from their own cancellations? What’ll they think of next?
And of course they don’t want to do so because they don’t want to spend the money on establishing the schemes and putting in place the infrastructure.
Because that will demonstrate that they have hollowed out the system and they are now having to overspend to put it in decent shape.
And they don’t have time before they are going to be thrown into a GE campaign. And the reason they don’t have time is because of the said hollowing out.
Omnishambles.
Reforms ‘would detain 46,000 migrants at a cost of £1 billion a year’
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/reforms-would-detain-46-000-migrants-at-a-cost-of-1-billion-a-year-lb8g079m9
I didn’t think he merited anything prior to this anyway so it does not change my mind. But no excuses. He is clearly a wife beater and Fiona Bruce handled it badly too.
https://twitter.com/fascinatorfun/status/1635298893004148737?s=20
This is a Europe wide problem as Macron specifically referring to it and that the UK and EU are to address the crisis that is engulfing the continent
Safe routes is an ideal if you are willing to have unlimited immigration but opening a safe route in France or Calais would de overwhelmed and still they would come by the boats
And more generally the system is riddled with almost intractable issues, because most countries seem to be both reluctant to receive large numbers of asylum seekers themselves, and keen to uphold the principles of the UN convention on refugees.
We could really do with one very large and welcoming country deciding that for demographic reasons it desperately needs immigration, like the USA did in the 19th century, and becoming the preferred safe haven for refugees as well as a destination for economic migration in the millions or tens of millions. Such a country would stand to become a superpower. There are countries where the demographics ought to suggest this (Russia and Belarus for a start) but they are not exactly appealing as safe havens, nor do they actually want migrants. Canada is probably the best candidate in terms of productive land area plus high economic development and experience with diverse populations.
For all their faults the countries that get closest to this kind of model, albeit with poor records on human and economic rights, are the gulf states.
Too many of these schemes come with a lot of nebulous language about what they are meant to achieve and are just assumed to be working it seems to me.
To give an example take a hypothetical adult literacy scheme. Currently we would just get some waffle about giving funding to local authorities to run a course to improve literacy in their area. Funding 500 mill countrywide.
Wouldn't it be better if they had a target of reducing adult illiteracy by say 30%. If the proposed scheme then only reduces it by 1% then we can look and say well is that 1% reduction worth spending half a billion on or should we look at a way of reducing it with a better scheme and send the funding to that?
The way our government work currently (both sides) we would just continue funding it because we would just get quotes from ministers about the wondrous improvement in the life chances of the illiterate. Then the next lot would come in and can it because it wasn't their idea and the originators would be whining about how dare they abolish a brilliant scheme. In truth no one knew if it was a brilliant scheme or not because no one actually went and measured the outcome.
Surestart is an example of the above as far as I can see, cost a fair amount, no actual measurements to show if it was worth it for the money spent or not. Maybe it was maybe it wasn't. Simple fact is no one really seems to know
Do you favour unlimited immigration or do you accept that limits are necessary
The government are to announce an annual limit for immigartion
What would yours be ?
ADDENDUM - Her "I'm not stupid . . ." rejoinder ranks (in minor leagues) right up there with "I am not a crook".
(BTW and FYI, Tricky Dick indeed WAS a crook, with respect to his dodgy tax write-offs.)
Two data-driven tips to optimize vaccine immune response
1. Sufficient Sleep
https://cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(23)00156-2…
@CurrentBiology
2. Same arm
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4380042
https://mobile.twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1635296047978418180
To some people, it's purely an administrative issue and we should welcome as many people as possible as quickly as possible. To others, there is a structural issue with the asylum system because it wasn't designed for a world of 8 billion people and easy global travel, therefore we cannot afford to adopt the solutions that the first group would like to see implemented.
I am further to the left than most on migration, and even I wouldn't say we should welcome as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
Perhaps this is a misinterpretation then? I'd argue, that because of our levels of prosperity, and because of the historical reasons for our prosperity, we should lead the world on accepting asylum seekers. As I said on the last thread I cannot fathom how we can accept that Turkey and Lebanon are having their border towns utterly transformed by migration, and not be prepared to take some of the pressure off that.
But for me, leading the world on this would involve sticking our necks out and using the global power we have to try to create the globally agreed system I refer to.
I think you'll find very, very few who would argue for unlimited immigration.