Trump’s indictment not going down well with independents – politicalbetting.com
It won’t be long before WH2024 starts in earnest and the big question is whether it will be between 78 year old Trump and 81 year old Biden. These are the ages the two men will be on election day
Political prosecution is a possibility, particularly in a deliberately politicised justice system. But there's not getting away that the ultimate argument of Trump's defenders, some more honestly than others, is that if you a Presidential candidate you should be immune from even being investigated. And that's just bloody insanity.
It only applies to presidential candidates, weirdly - plenty of politicians at lower levels hae been prosecuted and convicted before.
We're supposed to believe that his statements which give a different view, and which Desantis aped to please the same base, are just talk and they wouldn't really do differently. Right.
Papering over the cracks with performative bullshit won't improve the situation, much. Which is exactly what has happened to date.
True, but this doesn't imply "therefore the problem is the performative bullshit and if we just stop doing that then everything will be great"...
I don't think the argument is do nothing, the argument is the performative bullshit gives a false sense to an organisation that something has been done and therefore nothing more need to be.
In many organisations if you transgress the solution seems to be send you on a refresher course going over things you already went over and that didn't do the job last time
Trump, like Johnson, have had their moment in the spotlight. It’s over for them politically
Trump won't go as quietly as Boris.
For one thing, whilst they deserve plenty of scorn, Tory MPs eventually decided they'd had enough and took action. People who might have been killed by a mob Trump incited are too cowardly to do other than support him - and if they appear reluctant now, it won't stop them bending knee when the time comes.
And there's more (and more serious) indictments to come. Trump is no way regaining the WH. But can the GOP somehow stop him handing it on a plate to the Dems? If so, how? This is the big question for me.
Bottom line is, at this moment OFSTED are in any case so utterly discredited it’s very difficult to see what the point of its continued existence is. Under Wilshaw or Bell it wasn’t popular but it was both respected and effective. Under Spielman, rather like our current ludicrously inept exam system, it’s become a box ticking exercise for all the wrong boxes using startlingly incompetent procedures.
It’s even worse than it was under Woodhead, which is saying quite something.
There has to be some kind of inspection regime, but if it is to have any relevance at all it needs to be started from scratch.
If this election is a rerun it feels all of a piece with the speedy decline of America, and the West in general
A 78 year old, narcissistic bully possibly awaiting criminal charges, facing an 80 year old in obvious cognitive decline
AGAIN
And all the time, American cities rot from the core, and American life expectancy plunges below that of Panama.
Fucksake America, SORT IT OUT
Nothing left to save when the response to the latest shooting in a school which had an armed guard is "more armed guards". And then the morons saying that keep getting elected.
If this election is a rerun it feels all of a piece with the speedy decline of America, and the West in general
A 78 year old, narcissistic bully possibly awaiting criminal charges, facing an 80 year old in obvious cognitive decline
AGAIN
And all the time, American cities rot from the core, and American life expectancy plunges below that of Panama.
Fucksake America, SORT IT OUT
Nothing left to save when the response to the latest shooting in a school which had an armed guard is "more armed guards". And then the morons saying that keep getting elected.
True . Sad to say the US is fast turning into a failed state .
Bottom line is, at this moment OFSTED are in any case so utterly discredited it’s very difficult to see what the point of its continued existence is. Under Wilshaw or Bell it wasn’t popular but it was both respected and effective. Under Spielman, rather like our current ludicrously inept exam system, it’s become a box ticking exercise for all the wrong boxes using startlingly incompetent procedures.
It’s even worse than it was under Woodhead, which is saying quite something.
There has to be some kind of inspection regime, but if it is to have any relevance at all it needs to be started from scratch.
Unfortunately, it's a box ticking exercise that can arrange for a school to be taken over and for many staff to then lose their jobs as a matter of routine.
I get why school SLTs are terrified and will do all sorts of mad incantations to appease the gods.
The problem with Trump as Republican candidate is he might well get elected.
How we laughed when Labour chose Corbyn, but had the election campaign lasted another week, we’d have had PM Corbyn.
Biden is only one big scandal or cock up away from Trump getting back in.
Would we? It’s an intriguing conjecture - let’s say instead of 317-262 it ends 297-282 on seats. The SNP would be in a powerful position with its 35 seats but Labour officially wanted to wait a couple of years before a second referendum and still wanted to keep the provision in the gift of Westminster while STURGEON wanted the power to call a referendum to be vested in Holyrood.
Do we assume Plaid and the Greens would back Labour? The LDs wouldn’t and with SF absent you need 322 for a majority and Con plus DUP plus LD plus Sylvia Harmon would be 320 though the price of such a coalition especially with regard to the EU Referendum would have been heavy.
Conservatives might have had a choice - abandon Brexit and remain in office or stay true to the Referendum result and allow Corbyn to be Prime Minister?
The "will he or won't he?" question re: Joe Biden in 2024, is rather reminiscent of the same query asked about Franklin Roosevelt in 1940.
Of course MANY differences between those two incumbent presidents AND those two years!
However, note these similarities:
> 1940 & 2024 (am guessing) both years in which USA was on sidelines to major international conflicts yet nevertheless deeply engaged AND domestically divided.
> In 1940, FDR was NEVER a declared candidate for re-election, yet he never said that he would NOT be a candidate; thus keeping other possible Democratic alternatives, esp. from within his own administration, on ice so to speak, and ultimately frozen out, until in the the long, hot summer of 1940 (just after the Fall of France) the Democratic National Convention nominated . . . wait for it . . . Franklin D. Roosevelt.
One major difference between then & next year, FDR and Uncle Joe, is that the former had already been re-elected once, by an historic landslide (and thus 1940 nomination was for unprecedented 3rd term). Another was that strong majority of Democratic voters favored yet another Roosevelt run, a feeling that was even stronger among politicos, including many who actually disliked the New Deal and/or FDR personally.
Bottom line is, at this moment OFSTED are in any case so utterly discredited it’s very difficult to see what the point of its continued existence is. Under Wilshaw or Bell it wasn’t popular but it was both respected and effective. Under Spielman, rather like our current ludicrously inept exam system, it’s become a box ticking exercise for all the wrong boxes using startlingly incompetent procedures.
It’s even worse than it was under Woodhead, which is saying quite something.
There has to be some kind of inspection regime, but if it is to have any relevance at all it needs to be started from scratch.
I see someone has off-topicked my post despite it being on a matter discussed very recently today. In the last thread too IIRC.
If this election is a rerun it feels all of a piece with the speedy decline of America, and the West in general
A 78 year old, narcissistic bully possibly awaiting criminal charges, facing an 80 year old in obvious cognitive decline
AGAIN
And all the time, American cities rot from the core, and American life expectancy plunges below that of Panama.
Fucksake America, SORT IT OUT
Nothing left to save when the response to the latest shooting in a school which had an armed guard is "more armed guards". And then the morons saying that keep getting elected.
True . Sad to say the US is fast turning into a failed state .
The BBC write up of the Democratic also ran candidates seems almost keen for him not to be the candidate, but frustrated about it.
"Sitting president runs for second term" isn't much of a story compared to "decides not to run and there'a a big primary fight", so probably a lot of political journos would prefer the unlikely-but-exciting option...
{Note there is zero space the way RDS spells his surname. Says guy who can't spell "Barack" right half the time!}
Word on the street is that both 2024 GOP hopefuls from the great Palmetto State of South Carolina, former Gov. Nikki Haley and current US Sen. Tim Scott, are REALLY running for Vice President. At least THIS cycle.
As for Florida's answer to Viktor Orban, Ron DeSantis most definitely has a chance of beating out Donald Trump for the Republican nomination. PROVIDED he can play his cards correctly in a VERY high-stakes poker game.
For one thing, no doubt that majority of GOP politicos would much rather have RDS as their standard-bearer. Especially in swing states and districts. And that growing numbers of Republican voters are clearly coming to same conclusion.
Not many of them do. They have to reach some sort of notability threshold before we hear of them.
I remember seeing a broadcast news report on one of the recent school shootings when the journalist mentioned in an aside that there'd been another mass shooting overnight in a different city, but that was all we ever heard about that one.
The problem with Trump as Republican candidate is he might well get elected.
How we laughed when Labour chose Corbyn, but had the election campaign lasted another week, we’d have had PM Corbyn.
Biden is only one big scandal or cock up away from Trump getting back in.
Yes, I'm confident the American public won't elect Trump president again but it'd be best if they aren't given the chance to prove me right.
And it would be better still if he were rejected in the primaries so no myths can develop that he won really.
I dislike DeSantis intensely - he seems a revolting human being and totally unfit for office - but if he could thwart Trump he would be doing sterling public service.
As long as he then loses himself, which is the trickier part…
The problem with Trump as Republican candidate is he might well get elected.
How we laughed when Labour chose Corbyn, but had the election campaign lasted another week, we’d have had PM Corbyn.
Biden is only one big scandal or cock up away from Trump getting back in.
Yes, I'm confident the American public won't elect Trump president again but it'd be best if they aren't given the chance to prove me right.
And it would be better still if he were rejected in the primaries so no myths can develop that he won really.
I dislike DeSantis intensely - he seems a revolting human being and totally unfit for office - but if he could thwart Trump he would be doing sterling public service.
As long as he then loses himself, which is the trickier part…
This is an item on the very very VERY long list of reasons I hate Donald Trump - he's fixed things so I have to actually root for Ron DeSantis in an election. It's such a low feeling. You just want to turn the lights off and curl into a foetal position on the floor.
Bottom line is, at this moment OFSTED are in any case so utterly discredited it’s very difficult to see what the point of its continued existence is. Under Wilshaw or Bell it wasn’t popular but it was both respected and effective. Under Spielman, rather like our current ludicrously inept exam system, it’s become a box ticking exercise for all the wrong boxes using startlingly incompetent procedures.
It’s even worse than it was under Woodhead, which is saying quite something.
There has to be some kind of inspection regime, but if it is to have any relevance at all it needs to be started from scratch.
Which is precisely what they are calling for. ...Delegates to the NASUWT annual conference voted for a motion describing Ofsted as a “major contributor to the excessive workload and bureaucracy that blights the lives of teachers” and instructed the union to campaign for its abolition and replacement...
If this election is a rerun it feels all of a piece with the speedy decline of America, and the West in general
A 78 year old, narcissistic bully possibly awaiting criminal charges, facing an 80 year old in obvious cognitive decline
AGAIN
And all the time, American cities rot from the core, and American life expectancy plunges below that of Panama.
Fucksake America, SORT IT OUT
Nothing left to save when the response to the latest shooting in a school which had an armed guard is "more armed guards". And then the morons saying that keep getting elected.
True . Sad to say the US is fast turning into a failed state .
It is indeed
Is it ? Such conclusions seem premature. It's no more failed that we are...
Bottom line is, at this moment OFSTED are in any case so utterly discredited it’s very difficult to see what the point of its continued existence is. Under Wilshaw or Bell it wasn’t popular but it was both respected and effective. Under Spielman, rather like our current ludicrously inept exam system, it’s become a box ticking exercise for all the wrong boxes using startlingly incompetent procedures.
It’s even worse than it was under Woodhead, which is saying quite something.
There has to be some kind of inspection regime, but if it is to have any relevance at all it needs to be started from scratch.
I see someone has off-topicked my post despite it being on a matter discussed very recently today. In the last thread too IIRC.
Like every Guardian article on immigration, there is dissembling here. Reading between the lines, they turned up with no paperwork at all.
According to story cited, one of the Punks says they "paid for expensive customs declarations".
And according to their UK agent, the band was relying on “permitted paid engagement” (PPE) exemption . . . allows musicians to spend up to one month touring the UK if they are invited and paid by a UK-based organisation or client. Artists must be able to show a formal invitation to attend a pre-arranged event and prove they can support themselves during the trip and can pay for their return journey."
So clearly these Punks DID have "paperwork" - just reading what's ON the lines.
Like every Guardian article on immigration, there is dissembling here. Reading between the lines, they turned up with no paperwork at all.
According to story cited, one of the Punks says they "paid for expensive customs declarations".
And according to their UK agent, the band was relying on “permitted paid engagement” (PPE) exemption . . . allows musicians to spend up to one month touring the UK if they are invited and paid by a UK-based organisation or client. Artists must be able to show a formal invitation to attend a pre-arranged event and prove they can support themselves during the trip and can pay for their return journey."
So clearly these Punks DID have "paperwork" - just reading what's ON the lines.
No, the customs declarations would be for the equipment. It's the right to work which is at issue.
Like every Guardian article on immigration, there is dissembling here. Reading between the lines, they turned up with no paperwork at all.
According to story cited, one of the Punks says they "paid for expensive customs declarations".
And according to their UK agent, the band was relying on “permitted paid engagement” (PPE) exemption . . . allows musicians to spend up to one month touring the UK if they are invited and paid by a UK-based organisation or client. Artists must be able to show a formal invitation to attend a pre-arranged event and prove they can support themselves during the trip and can pay for their return journey."
So clearly these Punks DID have "paperwork" - just reading what's ON the lines.
No, the customs declarations would be for the equipment. It's the right to work which is at issue.
They're punks, for heavens sake. You expect paperwork ?
{Note there is zero space the way RDS spells his surname. Says guy who can't spell "Barack" right half the time!}
Word on the street is that both 2024 GOP hopefuls from the great Palmetto State of South Carolina, former Gov. Nikki Haley and current US Sen. Tim Scott, are REALLY running for Vice President. At least THIS cycle.
As for Florida's answer to Viktor Orban, Ron DeSantis most definitely has a chance of beating out Donald Trump for the Republican nomination. PROVIDED he can play his cards correctly in a VERY high-stakes poker game.
For one thing, no doubt that majority of GOP politicos would much rather have RDS as their standard-bearer. Especially in swing states and districts. And that growing numbers of Republican voters are clearly coming to same conclusion.
Agree with Haley and Scott are really thinking about the VP side. Personally, I would prefer Scott but either is fine.
I'm not sure about RDS beating Trump which is why I have been beating the drum about RDS doing a deal with Trump and standing as his VP pick (and, yes, I know about the one state rule and it has been gotten round before / is easy to get round). This from the NY Magazine (via MSN):
As for Mike's argument, one counter-argument. If you look at the Republicans and Democrats, their score between March 30th and April 6th on whether he should be prosecuted have barely budged but the Independents showed a large swing towards yes. It could easily swing back. Even those who might be sympathetic to a Trump conviction say the case is not exactly strong.
Like every Guardian article on immigration, there is dissembling here. Reading between the lines, they turned up with no paperwork at all.
According to story cited, one of the Punks says they "paid for expensive customs declarations".
And according to their UK agent, the band was relying on “permitted paid engagement” (PPE) exemption . . . allows musicians to spend up to one month touring the UK if they are invited and paid by a UK-based organisation or client. Artists must be able to show a formal invitation to attend a pre-arranged event and prove they can support themselves during the trip and can pay for their return journey."
So clearly these Punks DID have "paperwork" - just reading what's ON the lines.
No, the customs declarations would be for the equipment. It's the right to work which is at issue.
They're punks, for heavens sake. You expect paperwork ?
"Anarchy in the UK It's coming some day, if we can sort the paperwork out."
If this election is a rerun it feels all of a piece with the speedy decline of America, and the West in general
A 78 year old, narcissistic bully possibly awaiting criminal charges, facing an 80 year old in obvious cognitive decline
AGAIN
And all the time, American cities rot from the core, and American life expectancy plunges below that of Panama.
Fucksake America, SORT IT OUT
Nothing left to save when the response to the latest shooting in a school which had an armed guard is "more armed guards". And then the morons saying that keep getting elected.
True . Sad to say the US is fast turning into a failed state .
It is indeed
Read 'Why Nations Fail', The US' biggest problem at the moment is that neither side trusts the other. As a result, yes, the US is starting to take on the characteristics of other failed / dysfunctional states.
Like every Guardian article on immigration, there is dissembling here. Reading between the lines, they turned up with no paperwork at all.
According to story cited, one of the Punks says they "paid for expensive customs declarations".
And according to their UK agent, the band was relying on “permitted paid engagement” (PPE) exemption . . . allows musicians to spend up to one month touring the UK if they are invited and paid by a UK-based organisation or client. Artists must be able to show a formal invitation to attend a pre-arranged event and prove they can support themselves during the trip and can pay for their return journey."
So clearly these Punks DID have "paperwork" - just reading what's ON the lines.
You have to read articles like this REALLY carefully.
They “Paid for expensive customs declarations”. Which are to do with goods, not people.
“Instead, they planned to enter the UK under the “permitted paid engagement” (PPE) exemption, which is free.
“This allows musicians to spend up to one month touring the UK if they are invited and paid by a UK-based organisation or client. Artists must be able to show a formal invitation to attend a pre-arranged event and prove they can support themselves during the trip and can pay for their return journey.”
What’s not explicitly said, is that the appropriate invitation letter and payment proof was available to the immigration officers at the border. Which means it wasn’t, which was the reason their entry to the UK was refused.
The Guardian have a LOT of form, for such misleading articles on the subject.
Like every Guardian article on immigration, there is dissembling here. Reading between the lines, they turned up with no paperwork at all.
According to story cited, one of the Punks says they "paid for expensive customs declarations".
And according to their UK agent, the band was relying on “permitted paid engagement” (PPE) exemption . . . allows musicians to spend up to one month touring the UK if they are invited and paid by a UK-based organisation or client. Artists must be able to show a formal invitation to attend a pre-arranged event and prove they can support themselves during the trip and can pay for their return journey."
So clearly these Punks DID have "paperwork" - just reading what's ON the lines.
No, the customs declarations would be for the equipment. It's the right to work which is at issue.
They're punks, for heavens sake. You expect paperwork ?
From the punks, no.
From their tour manager and travel agent, absolutely.
BorderGuard: Are you going to use the “certificate of sponsorship route”
Band: “No we are going to use the Permitted Paid Exemption route instead”
BG: “ok. Please show me your formal invitation, proof of funds and return ticket”
Band: errr…
The bit in italics is not in the article. It goes directly from the band intention to use the PPE route to them being denied entry and blaming Brexit.
Do you think it would be helpful for us to be told *why* they were denied entry under the PPE route?
The expert (not from the band) they interviewed said they planned to use this route. My guess is they thought it could be done on the spot, and didn't realise they needed a sponsor.
There's an argument to be made for loosening these requirements, of course.
Like every Guardian article on immigration, there is dissembling here. Reading between the lines, they turned up with no paperwork at all.
According to story cited, one of the Punks says they "paid for expensive customs declarations".
And according to their UK agent, the band was relying on “permitted paid engagement” (PPE) exemption . . . allows musicians to spend up to one month touring the UK if they are invited and paid by a UK-based organisation or client. Artists must be able to show a formal invitation to attend a pre-arranged event and prove they can support themselves during the trip and can pay for their return journey."
So clearly these Punks DID have "paperwork" - just reading what's ON the lines.
No, the customs declarations would be for the equipment. It's the right to work which is at issue.
They're punks, for heavens sake. You expect paperwork ?
"Anarchy in the UK It's coming some day, if we can sort the paperwork out."
BorderGuard: Are you going to use the “certificate of sponsorship route”
Band: “No we are going to use the Permitted Paid Exemption route instead”
BG: “ok. Please show me your formal invitation, proof of funds and return ticket”
Band: errr…
The bit in italics is not in the article. It goes directly from the band intention to use the PPE route to them being denied entry and blaming Brexit.
Do you think it would be helpful for us to be told *why* they were denied entry under the PPE route?
Okay, fine. I'll chalk your down as another fan of bureaucracy and red tape and an enemy to freedom then, because your defence of my criticism is that they didn't have the necessary paperwork to fulfill the rules.
Why should they need reams of paperwork in the first place? What good does it do?
And it's not about Brexit. It's about the government's choice to impose bureaucracy and red tape because the freedom of foreign punk bands to come and play in Britain threatens them, because they hate freedom.
Donald Trump is appealing a ruling rejecting his challenge to a grand jury subpoena for former VP Mike Pence to testify in the Jan. 6 probe, per person familiar. Trump lost on executive privilege; Pence last week said no appeal on legislative privilege issue.
BorderGuard: Are you going to use the “certificate of sponsorship route”
Band: “No we are going to use the Permitted Paid Exemption route instead”
BG: “ok. Please show me your formal invitation, proof of funds and return ticket”
Band: errr…
The bit in italics is not in the article. It goes directly from the band intention to use the PPE route to them being denied entry and blaming Brexit.
Do you think it would be helpful for us to be told *why* they were denied entry under the PPE route?
Okay, fine. I'll chalk your down as another fan of bureaucracy and red tape and an enemy to freedom then, because your defence of my criticism is that they didn't have the necessary paperwork to fulfill the rules.
Why should they need reams of paperwork in the first place? What good does it do?
And it's not about Brexit. It's about the government's choice to impose bureaucracy and red tape because the freedom of foreign punk bands to come and play in Britain threatens them, because they hate freedom.
Did you care before Brexit when non-EU bands faced the same hurdles? Do you know what rules other countries have? Are ours unusually onerous, or about normal?
If this election is a rerun it feels all of a piece with the speedy decline of America, and the West in general
A 78 year old, narcissistic bully possibly awaiting criminal charges, facing an 80 year old in obvious cognitive decline
AGAIN
And all the time, American cities rot from the core, and American life expectancy plunges below that of Panama.
Fucksake America, SORT IT OUT
Nothing left to save when the response to the latest shooting in a school which had an armed guard is "more armed guards". And then the morons saying that keep getting elected.
Here is an example of how divided the States is and why compromise is getting impossible.
The left's view is yours - what a stupid thing to do in response to a shooting, it doesn't resolve anything.
The right's response is "A transgender person carried out the Nashville school shooting on 'Transgender Day of Vengeance' (with a nice Transgender flag with an AR-15 in it) and suddenly the Media can't move away from the story quick enough' (ditto the Waukesha Christmas massacre where it was a 'car' that did all the killings).
Both comments would be right but both sides don't want to understand the others' view.
Like every Guardian article on immigration, there is dissembling here. Reading between the lines, they turned up with no paperwork at all.
According to story cited, one of the Punks says they "paid for expensive customs declarations".
And according to their UK agent, the band was relying on “permitted paid engagement” (PPE) exemption . . . allows musicians to spend up to one month touring the UK if they are invited and paid by a UK-based organisation or client. Artists must be able to show a formal invitation to attend a pre-arranged event and prove they can support themselves during the trip and can pay for their return journey."
So clearly these Punks DID have "paperwork" - just reading what's ON the lines.
You have to read articles like this REALLY carefully.
They “Paid for expensive customs declarations”. Which are to do with goods, not people.
“Instead, they planned to enter the UK under the “permitted paid engagement” (PPE) exemption, which is free.
“This allows musicians to spend up to one month touring the UK if they are invited and paid by a UK-based organisation or client. Artists must be able to show a formal invitation to attend a pre-arranged event and prove they can support themselves during the trip and can pay for their return journey.”
What’s not explicitly said, is that the appropriate invitation letter and payment proof was available to the immigration officers at the border. Which means it wasn’t, which was the reason their entry to the UK was refused.
The Guardian have a LOT of form, for such misleading articles on the subject.
"What’s not explicitly said, is that the appropriate invitation letter and payment proof was available to the immigration officers at the border. Which means it wasn’t . ."
What is your proof - if any - for the this assumption? OR is it just your opinion?
BorderGuard: Are you going to use the “certificate of sponsorship route”
Band: “No we are going to use the Permitted Paid Exemption route instead”
BG: “ok. Please show me your formal invitation, proof of funds and return ticket”
Band: errr…
The bit in italics is not in the article. It goes directly from the band intention to use the PPE route to them being denied entry and blaming Brexit.
Do you think it would be helpful for us to be told *why* they were denied entry under the PPE route?
Okay, fine. I'll chalk your down as another fan of bureaucracy and red tape and an enemy to freedom then, because your defence of my criticism is that they didn't have the necessary paperwork to fulfill the rules.
Why should they need reams of paperwork in the first place? What good does it do?
And it's not about Brexit. It's about the government's choice to impose bureaucracy and red tape because the freedom of foreign punk bands to come and play in Britain threatens them, because they hate freedom.
They need the paperwork, because the EU wasn’t competent on the reciprocal. A British band touring Europe needs a separate set of paperwork for each country they will play, and also faces customs restrictions on movement of equipment between countries, something called ‘Cabotage’.
BorderGuard: Are you going to use the “certificate of sponsorship route”
Band: “No we are going to use the Permitted Paid Exemption route instead”
BG: “ok. Please show me your formal invitation, proof of funds and return ticket”
Band: errr…
The bit in italics is not in the article. It goes directly from the band intention to use the PPE route to them being denied entry and blaming Brexit.
Do you think it would be helpful for us to be told *why* they were denied entry under the PPE route?
Okay, fine. I'll chalk your down as another fan of bureaucracy and red tape and an enemy to freedom then, because your defence of my criticism is that they didn't have the necessary paperwork to fulfill the rules.
Why should they need reams of paperwork in the first place? What good does it do?
And it's not about Brexit. It's about the government's choice to impose bureaucracy and red tape because the freedom of foreign punk bands to come and play in Britain threatens them, because they hate freedom.
More gigs for British punk bands. A Brexit benefit.
Like every Guardian article on immigration, there is dissembling here. Reading between the lines, they turned up with no paperwork at all.
According to story cited, one of the Punks says they "paid for expensive customs declarations".
And according to their UK agent, the band was relying on “permitted paid engagement” (PPE) exemption . . . allows musicians to spend up to one month touring the UK if they are invited and paid by a UK-based organisation or client. Artists must be able to show a formal invitation to attend a pre-arranged event and prove they can support themselves during the trip and can pay for their return journey."
So clearly these Punks DID have "paperwork" - just reading what's ON the lines.
You have to read articles like this REALLY carefully.
They “Paid for expensive customs declarations”. Which are to do with goods, not people.
“Instead, they planned to enter the UK under the “permitted paid engagement” (PPE) exemption, which is free.
“This allows musicians to spend up to one month touring the UK if they are invited and paid by a UK-based organisation or client. Artists must be able to show a formal invitation to attend a pre-arranged event and prove they can support themselves during the trip and can pay for their return journey.”
What’s not explicitly said, is that the appropriate invitation letter and payment proof was available to the immigration officers at the border. Which means it wasn’t, which was the reason their entry to the UK was refused.
The Guardian have a LOT of form, for such misleading articles on the subject.
"What’s not explicitly said, is that the appropriate invitation letter and payment proof was available to the immigration officers at the border. Which means it wasn’t . ."
What is your proof - if any - for the this assumption? OR is it just your opinion?
The article defines the requirement, but doesn’t say that the band complied with the requirement. Therefore, it’s a reasonable assumption, based on two decades of reading similarly obtuse Guardian articles on immigration issues, that the appropriate paperwork was not in place.
BorderGuard: Are you going to use the “certificate of sponsorship route”
Band: “No we are going to use the Permitted Paid Exemption route instead”
BG: “ok. Please show me your formal invitation, proof of funds and return ticket”
Band: errr…
The bit in italics is not in the article. It goes directly from the band intention to use the PPE route to them being denied entry and blaming Brexit.
Do you think it would be helpful for us to be told *why* they were denied entry under the PPE route?
The expert (not from the band) they interviewed said they planned to use this route. My guess is they thought it could be done on the spot, and didn't realise they needed a sponsor.
There's an argument to be made for loosening these requirements, of course.
You ARE guessing.
IF the band's agent did NOT tell them to present their invitation from UK venue in writing, then sounds like they'd have a civil case against him.
However, simply assuming that they didn't have required documentation, is a logical bridge toooooo far.
BorderGuard: Are you going to use the “certificate of sponsorship route”
Band: “No we are going to use the Permitted Paid Exemption route instead”
BG: “ok. Please show me your formal invitation, proof of funds and return ticket”
Band: errr…
The bit in italics is not in the article. It goes directly from the band intention to use the PPE route to them being denied entry and blaming Brexit.
Do you think it would be helpful for us to be told *why* they were denied entry under the PPE route?
Okay, fine. I'll chalk your down as another fan of bureaucracy and red tape and an enemy to freedom then, because your defence of my criticism is that they didn't have the necessary paperwork to fulfill the rules.
Why should they need reams of paperwork in the first place? What good does it do?
And it's not about Brexit. It's about the government's choice to impose bureaucracy and red tape because the freedom of foreign punk bands to come and play in Britain threatens them, because they hate freedom.
They need the paperwork, because the EU wasn’t competent on the reciprocal. A British band touring Europe needs a separate set of paperwork for each country they will play, and also faces customs restrictions on movement of equipment between countries, something called ‘Cabotage’.
I believe the EU did offer us a deal on Touring mucisians, but we considered it too all-encompassing i.e virtually anyone could have called themselves a performer.
Sadly, the details of unused proposals from the negotiations are not public.
BorderGuard: Are you going to use the “certificate of sponsorship route”
Band: “No we are going to use the Permitted Paid Exemption route instead”
BG: “ok. Please show me your formal invitation, proof of funds and return ticket”
Band: errr…
The bit in italics is not in the article. It goes directly from the band intention to use the PPE route to them being denied entry and blaming Brexit.
Do you think it would be helpful for us to be told *why* they were denied entry under the PPE route?
The expert (not from the band) they interviewed said they planned to use this route. My guess is they thought it could be done on the spot, and didn't realise they needed a sponsor.
There's an argument to be made for loosening these requirements, of course.
Maybe they just didn't get through the metal detectors.
Redfield & Wilton Strategies @RedfieldWilton · 15s Labour leads by 14%, the narrowest lead for Labour since Rishi Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (9 April):
Labour 44% (-1) Conservative 30% (+2) Liberal Democrat 10% (-2) Reform UK 6% (+1) Green 5% (+1) SNP 3% (-1) Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 2 April
Definite narrowing. It is undeniable. It's clear that previous Don't Knows are returning to the Tories. What we have yet to see, though, is any sign of direct switchers to Labour having a change of heart. It starts to get very interesting if that happens.
BorderGuard: Are you going to use the “certificate of sponsorship route”
Band: “No we are going to use the Permitted Paid Exemption route instead”
BG: “ok. Please show me your formal invitation, proof of funds and return ticket”
Band: errr…
The bit in italics is not in the article. It goes directly from the band intention to use the PPE route to them being denied entry and blaming Brexit.
Do you think it would be helpful for us to be told *why* they were denied entry under the PPE route?
The expert (not from the band) they interviewed said they planned to use this route. My guess is they thought it could be done on the spot, and didn't realise they needed a sponsor.
There's an argument to be made for loosening these requirements, of course.
You ARE guessing.
IF the band's agent did NOT tell them to present their invitation from UK venue in writing, then sounds like they'd have a civil case against him.
However, simply assuming that they didn't have required documentation, is a logical bridge toooooo far.
Yes, I'm guessing. This is why I said "I guess". In English English, that means I am guessing, not I am supposing like in American English.
O/t but my wife is Zooming with three old female friends and they’ve just been very critical of the Labour advertising campaign; the one most of us decried. At least two are regular Labour voters and I don’t think the other two vote Conservative.
BorderGuard: Are you going to use the “certificate of sponsorship route”
Band: “No we are going to use the Permitted Paid Exemption route instead”
BG: “ok. Please show me your formal invitation, proof of funds and return ticket”
Band: errr…
The bit in italics is not in the article. It goes directly from the band intention to use the PPE route to them being denied entry and blaming Brexit.
Do you think it would be helpful for us to be told *why* they were denied entry under the PPE route?
Okay, fine. I'll chalk your down as another fan of bureaucracy and red tape and an enemy to freedom then, because your defence of my criticism is that they didn't have the necessary paperwork to fulfill the rules.
Why should they need reams of paperwork in the first place? What good does it do?
And it's not about Brexit. It's about the government's choice to impose bureaucracy and red tape because the freedom of foreign punk bands to come and play in Britain threatens them, because they hate freedom.
They need the paperwork, because the EU wasn’t competent on the reciprocal. A British band touring Europe needs a separate set of paperwork for each country they will play, and also faces customs restrictions on movement of equipment between countries, something called ‘Cabotage’.
I believe the EU did offer us a deal on Touring mucisians, but we considered it too all-encompassing i.e virtually anyone could have called themselves a performer.
Sadly, the details of unused proposals from the negotiations are not public.
BorderGuard: Are you going to use the “certificate of sponsorship route”
Band: “No we are going to use the Permitted Paid Exemption route instead”
BG: “ok. Please show me your formal invitation, proof of funds and return ticket”
Band: errr…
The bit in italics is not in the article. It goes directly from the band intention to use the PPE route to them being denied entry and blaming Brexit.
Do you think it would be helpful for us to be told *why* they were denied entry under the PPE route?
The expert (not from the band) they interviewed said they planned to use this route. My guess is they thought it could be done on the spot, and didn't realise they needed a sponsor.
There's an argument to be made for loosening these requirements, of course.
You ARE guessing.
IF the band's agent did NOT tell them to present their invitation from UK venue in writing, then sounds like they'd have a civil case against him.
However, simply assuming that they didn't have required documentation, is a logical bridge toooooo far.
Yes, I'm guessing. This is why I said "I guess". In English English, that means I am guessing, not I am supposing like in American English.
Functional difference between a guess and a supposition being as vast as the Atlantic (or Pacific?)
Redfield & Wilton Strategies @RedfieldWilton · 15s Labour leads by 14%, the narrowest lead for Labour since Rishi Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (9 April):
Labour 44% (-1) Conservative 30% (+2) Liberal Democrat 10% (-2) Reform UK 6% (+1) Green 5% (+1) SNP 3% (-1) Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 2 April
Definite narrowing. It is undeniable. It's clear that previous Don't Knows are returning to the Tories. What we have yet to see, though, is any sign of direct switchers to Labour having a change of heart. It starts to get very interesting if that happens.
BorderGuard: Are you going to use the “certificate of sponsorship route”
Band: “No we are going to use the Permitted Paid Exemption route instead”
BG: “ok. Please show me your formal invitation, proof of funds and return ticket”
Band: errr…
The bit in italics is not in the article. It goes directly from the band intention to use the PPE route to them being denied entry and blaming Brexit.
Do you think it would be helpful for us to be told *why* they were denied entry under the PPE route?
The expert (not from the band) they interviewed said they planned to use this route. My guess is they thought it could be done on the spot, and didn't realise they needed a sponsor.
There's an argument to be made for loosening these requirements, of course.
Maybe they just didn't get through the metal detectors.
Man, you've been on a roll recently with the one-liners!
Like every Guardian article on immigration, there is dissembling here. Reading between the lines, they turned up with no paperwork at all.
According to story cited, one of the Punks says they "paid for expensive customs declarations".
And according to their UK agent, the band was relying on “permitted paid engagement” (PPE) exemption . . . allows musicians to spend up to one month touring the UK if they are invited and paid by a UK-based organisation or client. Artists must be able to show a formal invitation to attend a pre-arranged event and prove they can support themselves during the trip and can pay for their return journey."
So clearly these Punks DID have "paperwork" - just reading what's ON the lines.
No, the customs declarations would be for the equipment. It's the right to work which is at issue.
They're punks, for heavens sake. You expect paperwork ?
I assume their agent trousered the cash and assumed he could blah his way through border control…
Like every Guardian article on immigration, there is dissembling here. Reading between the lines, they turned up with no paperwork at all.
According to story cited, one of the Punks says they "paid for expensive customs declarations".
And according to their UK agent, the band was relying on “permitted paid engagement” (PPE) exemption . . . allows musicians to spend up to one month touring the UK if they are invited and paid by a UK-based organisation or client. Artists must be able to show a formal invitation to attend a pre-arranged event and prove they can support themselves during the trip and can pay for their return journey."
So clearly these Punks DID have "paperwork" - just reading what's ON the lines.
No, the customs declarations would be for the equipment. It's the right to work which is at issue.
They're punks, for heavens sake. You expect paperwork ?
I assume their agent trousered the cash and assumed he could blah his way through border control…
Liz Truss has declared you to be an active member of the anti-growth coalition.
Redfield & Wilton Strategies @RedfieldWilton · 15s Labour leads by 14%, the narrowest lead for Labour since Rishi Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (9 April):
Labour 44% (-1) Conservative 30% (+2) Liberal Democrat 10% (-2) Reform UK 6% (+1) Green 5% (+1) SNP 3% (-1) Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 2 April
Definite narrowing. It is undeniable. It's clear that previous Don't Knows are returning to the Tories. What we have yet to see, though, is any sign of direct switchers to Labour having a change of heart. It starts to get very interesting if that happens.
BorderGuard: Are you going to use the “certificate of sponsorship route”
Band: “No we are going to use the Permitted Paid Exemption route instead”
BG: “ok. Please show me your formal invitation, proof of funds and return ticket”
Band: errr…
The bit in italics is not in the article. It goes directly from the band intention to use the PPE route to them being denied entry and blaming Brexit.
Do you think it would be helpful for us to be told *why* they were denied entry under the PPE route?
The expert (not from the band) they interviewed said they planned to use this route. My guess is they thought it could be done on the spot, and didn't realise they needed a sponsor.
There's an argument to be made for loosening these requirements, of course.
That’s possible - and them blamed the fact that the guidance was in English for it not being clear.
Redfield & Wilton Strategies @RedfieldWilton · 15s Labour leads by 14%, the narrowest lead for Labour since Rishi Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (9 April):
Labour 44% (-1) Conservative 30% (+2) Liberal Democrat 10% (-2) Reform UK 6% (+1) Green 5% (+1) SNP 3% (-1) Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 2 April
Definite narrowing. It is undeniable. It's clear that previous Don't Knows are returning to the Tories. What we have yet to see, though, is any sign of direct switchers to Labour having a change of heart. It starts to get very interesting if that happens.
Labour will form the next government, I'm very sure.
Cameron struggled to get a majority and the CP is in a much worse state now than it was then. Sunak is popular but not more so than Cameron was. Plus Covid's removed some older voters.
Boundary changes may favour the CP a bit but Scotland is the dynamic which will get Labour over the line, probably into majority territory. The implosion of the SNP will prove decisive. Don't rely on 2019 GE as any sort of guide to 2024, that's my advice.
Sunak is very good, and more popular than Starmer, but it won't be nearly enough to counteract time for a change.
Comments
It only applies to presidential candidates, weirdly - plenty of politicians at lower levels hae been prosecuted and convicted before.
He's the oldest US president ever and his approval ratings are mired in the low 40s. Doubt is creeping in whether Joe Biden will run for re-election.
Those closest to Mr Biden, 80, insist his 2024 campaign launch is imminent, but the president himself does not appear to have made a final call.
And while polls show a majority of Democrats want the party to nominate someone else, top prospects say they will not challenge Mr Biden if he runs.
But what if he decides he will not?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-63654388
For one thing, whilst they deserve plenty of scorn, Tory MPs eventually decided they'd had enough and took action. People who might have been killed by a mob Trump incited are too cowardly to do other than support him - and if they appear reluctant now, it won't stop them bending knee when the time comes.
Hence why it comes down to the Independents.
A 78 year old, narcissistic bully possibly awaiting criminal charges, facing an 80 year old in obvious cognitive decline
AGAIN
And all the time, American cities rot from the core, and American life expectancy plunges below that of Panama.
Fucksake America, SORT IT OUT
#stopthesteal
How we laughed when Labour chose Corbyn, but had the election campaign lasted another week, we’d have had PM Corbyn.
Biden is only one big scandal or cock up away from Trump getting back in.
Not just on classical history puns but puns in general.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/apr/10/nasuwt-members-call-for-ofsted-abolition-to-end-reign-of-terror
It’s about the same order of probability if the Orange Loon runs.
Another round of candle light vigils and pathetic platitudes to come .
Bottom line is, at this moment OFSTED are in any case so utterly discredited it’s very difficult to see what the point of its continued existence is. Under Wilshaw or Bell it wasn’t popular but it was both respected and effective. Under Spielman, rather like our current ludicrously inept exam system, it’s become a box ticking exercise for all the wrong boxes using startlingly incompetent procedures.
It’s even worse than it was under Woodhead, which is saying quite something.
There has to be some kind of inspection regime, but if it is to have any relevance at all it needs to be started from scratch.
I get why school SLTs are terrified and will do all sorts of mad incantations to appease the gods.
Do we assume Plaid and the Greens would back Labour? The LDs wouldn’t and with SF absent you need 322 for a majority and Con plus DUP plus LD plus Sylvia Harmon would be 320 though the price of such a coalition especially with regard to the EU Referendum would have been heavy.
Conservatives might have had a choice - abandon Brexit and remain in office or stay true to the Referendum result and allow Corbyn to be Prime Minister?
Of course MANY differences between those two incumbent presidents AND those two years!
However, note these similarities:
> 1940 & 2024 (am guessing) both years in which USA was on sidelines to major international conflicts yet nevertheless deeply engaged AND domestically divided.
> In 1940, FDR was NEVER a declared candidate for re-election, yet he never said that he would NOT be a candidate; thus keeping other possible Democratic alternatives, esp. from within his own administration, on ice so to speak, and ultimately frozen out, until in the the long, hot summer of 1940 (just after the Fall of France) the Democratic National Convention nominated . . . wait for it . . . Franklin D. Roosevelt.
One major difference between then & next year, FDR and Uncle Joe, is that the former had already been re-elected once, by an historic landslide (and thus 1940 nomination was for unprecedented 3rd term). Another was that strong majority of Democratic voters favored yet another Roosevelt run, a feeling that was even stronger among politicos, including many who actually disliked the New Deal and/or FDR personally.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/10/german-punk-band-humiliated-after-being-refused-uk-entry-due-to-post-brexit-rules
{Note there is zero space the way RDS spells his surname. Says guy who can't spell "Barack" right half the time!}
Word on the street is that both 2024 GOP hopefuls from the great Palmetto State of South Carolina, former Gov. Nikki Haley and current US Sen. Tim Scott, are REALLY running for Vice President. At least THIS cycle.
As for Florida's answer to Viktor Orban, Ron DeSantis most definitely has a chance of beating out Donald Trump for the Republican nomination. PROVIDED he can play his cards correctly in a VERY high-stakes poker game.
For one thing, no doubt that majority of GOP politicos would much rather have RDS as their standard-bearer. Especially in swing states and districts. And that growing numbers of Republican voters are clearly coming to same conclusion.
Five people have been killed and at least six wounded in a shooting at a bank in the US city of Louisville, Kentucky, police confirm
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-65233548
I remember seeing a broadcast news report on one of the recent school shootings when the journalist mentioned in an aside that there'd been another mass shooting overnight in a different city, but that was all we ever heard about that one.
I dislike DeSantis intensely - he seems a revolting human being and totally unfit for office - but if he could thwart Trump he would be doing sterling public service.
As long as he then loses himself, which is the trickier part…
The higher price was up for a good hour or two, which shows how sluggish this market is to developments.
...Delegates to the NASUWT annual conference voted for a motion describing Ofsted as a “major contributor to the excessive workload and bureaucracy that blights the lives of teachers” and instructed the union to campaign for its abolition and replacement...
I completely agree.
The irony is strong with this one.
Such conclusions seem premature. It's no more failed that we are...
Oh, I see your point.
And according to their UK agent, the band was relying on “permitted paid engagement” (PPE) exemption . . . allows musicians to spend up to one month touring the UK if they are invited and paid by a UK-based organisation or client. Artists must be able to show a formal invitation to attend a pre-arranged event and prove they can support themselves during the trip and can pay for their return journey."
So clearly these Punks DID have "paperwork" - just reading what's ON the lines.
After giving you all notice, too.
The final two of Truss and Sunak were chosen on the 20th of July and his post is four days later.
As I read the article:
BorderGuard: Are you going to use the “certificate of sponsorship route”
Band: “No we are going to use the Permitted Paid Exemption route instead”
BG: “ok. Please show me your formal invitation, proof of funds and return ticket”
Band: errr…
The bit in italics is not in the article. It goes directly from the band intention to use the PPE route to them being denied entry and blaming Brexit.
Do you think it would be helpful for us to be told *why* they were denied entry under the PPE route?
I'm not sure about RDS beating Trump which is why I have been beating the drum about RDS doing a deal with Trump and standing as his VP pick (and, yes, I know about the one state rule and it has been gotten round before / is easy to get round). This from the NY Magazine (via MSN):
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/what-if-desantis-takes-a-pass-on-2024/ar-AA19Ekw6
As for Mike's argument, one counter-argument. If you look at the Republicans and Democrats, their score between March 30th and April 6th on whether he should be prosecuted have barely budged but the Independents showed a large swing towards yes. It could easily swing back. Even those who might be sympathetic to a Trump conviction say the case is not exactly strong.
It's coming some day, if we can sort the paperwork out."
They “Paid for expensive customs declarations”. Which are to do with goods, not people.
“Instead, they planned to enter the UK under the “permitted paid engagement” (PPE) exemption, which is free.
“This allows musicians to spend up to one month touring the UK if they are invited and paid by a UK-based organisation or client. Artists must be able to show a formal invitation to attend a pre-arranged event and prove they can support themselves during the trip and can pay for their return journey.”
What’s not explicitly said, is that the appropriate invitation letter and payment proof was available to the immigration officers at the border. Which means it wasn’t, which was the reason their entry to the UK was refused.
The Guardian have a LOT of form, for such misleading articles on the subject.
https://twitter.com/electionmapsuk/status/1645359233351790592?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
@RedfieldWilton
·
15s
Labour leads by 14%, the narrowest lead for Labour since Rishi Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (9 April):
Labour 44% (-1)
Conservative 30% (+2)
Liberal Democrat 10% (-2)
Reform UK 6% (+1)
Green 5% (+1)
SNP 3% (-1)
Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 2 April
From their tour manager and travel agent, absolutely.
There's an argument to be made for loosening these requirements, of course.
Why should they need reams of paperwork in the first place? What good does it do?
And it's not about Brexit. It's about the government's choice to impose bureaucracy and red tape because the freedom of foreign punk bands to come and play in Britain threatens them, because they hate freedom.
More to come.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1645454564865310720
The left's view is yours - what a stupid thing to do in response to a shooting, it doesn't resolve anything.
The right's response is "A transgender person carried out the Nashville school shooting on 'Transgender Day of Vengeance' (with a nice Transgender flag with an AR-15 in it) and suddenly the Media can't move away from the story quick enough' (ditto the Waukesha Christmas massacre where it was a 'car' that did all the killings).
Both comments would be right but both sides don't want to understand the others' view.
What is your proof - if any - for the this assumption? OR is it just your opinion?
Customs guy : Excuse me?"
IF the band's agent did NOT tell them to present their invitation from UK venue in writing, then sounds like they'd have a civil case against him.
However, simply assuming that they didn't have required documentation, is a logical bridge toooooo far.
Sadly, the details of unused proposals from the negotiations are not public.
At least two are regular Labour voters and I don’t think the other two vote Conservative.
Or timelines for Rishi to turn it around…
Cameron struggled to get a majority and the CP is in a much worse state now than it was then. Sunak is popular but not more so than Cameron was. Plus Covid's removed some older voters.
Boundary changes may favour the CP a bit but Scotland is the dynamic which will get Labour over the line, probably into majority territory. The implosion of the SNP will prove decisive. Don't rely on 2019 GE as any sort of guide to 2024, that's my advice.
Sunak is very good, and more popular than Starmer, but it won't be nearly enough to counteract time for a change.