Seriously - @carnforth - go to Ethiopia. I see you can get a return flight for £600
Once you are there it is a stupefying country. The Danakil and Erta Ale are in the world’s top 10 destinations for OMFG
But there is so much more. It’s enormous, amazing, ancient. And it can be done so much cheaper than you think. The key is to use good local tour ops. Check their ratings online
To be fair, they were shipped out while Johnson was boss.
Sunak is pretty hardcore on immigration issues, it seems unlikely he would or does disapprove.
If Rishi wasn't hardcore on immigration (whether by conviction or as an electoral calculation), he presumably wouldn't have made the choices he has (making boat stopping a Top Five Issue, ploughing on with Rwanda etc). And the bottom line is that he is the Prime Minister, he could change tack tomorrow if he wanted to spend enough political capital on it. Or let the policy die in the long grass.
Whether it can be made to work is another matter. My hunch is that the most voters will like this approach in the same way they like sausages; a lot, but only as long as they don't have to see the process to get there. Once small boat migrants turn into people with faces, names and stories, I forsee problems for the Home Secretary. (The Mail, in particular, I can imagine doing a THIS CRUELTY ISN'T WHAT WE CALLED FOR headline. Free onion with every paper.)
And most obviously - if Sunak wasn't hardcore on immigration, he wouldn't put Braverman in charge of immigration policy, would he?
IIRC, Braverman was one of the first senior Tories to switch their support to Sunak from Truss, so he owes her.
He did, but he could have given her another department, to avoid the particular absurdity of claiming someone had shown responsibility by quitting and then reappointing them to the same position a week later. Someone else could have taken a super hard line, it is clearly what the party wants.
Much of the conversation about the coming Ukrainian offensive seems to be suggesting that the most likely outcome is tactical gains. I don't know how optimistic or pessimistic that is but I'm a bit puzzled. A lot of kit has been sent particularly ground vehicles. But not modern fighter jets and long range artillery. Advancing over the ground will be difficult because of the amount of mining that has been done. Why are we making it so difficult for them? Fear of 'escalation'? Or because we don't really want them to succeed? On the first point, military sites in Crimea have already been targeted so it is hardly a taboo. And we need to understand the logic of this 'escalation' policy. The escalatory weapons are presumably the ones the Russians fear. Weapons that are likely to lead to their defeat. So we won't give them those but we'll do enough so they can give the Russians a bloody nose.
Something else doesn't seem quite right either. Europe has gone from importing 50% of its gas from Russia to 5%. Why is no-one talking about this? Whatever you think of Scholz they've accomplished a lot on that side. And yet no-one seems to want to talk about it. How Russia is losing the energy war. Is this so people and industry don't get complacent and stop minding their usage. It's weird. We should be hammering just what a mess Russia is in economically. The IMF forecasts are absurd and based on virtually no data. How can a country that has lost 2% of its workforce, a thousand major companies and isn't making money on its main export earners oil and gas be keeping its head above water?
On the Russian economy, there are a couple of things worth noting:
1. Russia had enormous foreign reserves ahead of the invasion, this has enabled them to continue to buy many of the goods they need from abroad, despite the collapse of some of their energy sales.
2. China and India are actively helping Russia sanctions-bust
3. A lot of the issues will take time to have an effect. In particular, the departure of foreign oil services companies will have a long-term negative impact on hydrocarbon production... But it takes time to see this.
Seriously - @carnforth - go to Ethiopia. I see you can get a return flight for £600
Once you are there it is a stupefying country. The Danakil and Erta Ale are in the world’s top 10 destinations for OMFG
But there is so much more. It’s enormous, amazing, ancient. And it can be done so much cheaper than you think. The key is to use good local tour ops. Check their ratings online
Isn't it dangerous?
Yes. But so is walking around New Orleans. Probably about the same, in fact
Much of the conversation about the coming Ukrainian offensive seems to be suggesting that the most likely outcome is tactical gains. I don't know how optimistic or pessimistic that is but I'm a bit puzzled. A lot of kit has been sent particularly ground vehicles. But not modern fighter jets and long range artillery. Advancing over the ground will be difficult because of the amount of mining that has been done. Why are we making it so difficult for them? Fear of 'escalation'? Or because we don't really want them to succeed? On the first point, military sites in Crimea have already been targeted so it is hardly a taboo. And we need to understand the logic of this 'escalation' policy. The escalatory weapons are presumably the ones the Russians fear. Weapons that are likely to lead to their defeat. So we won't give them those but we'll do enough so they can give the Russians a bloody nose.
Something else doesn't seem quite right either. Europe has gone from importing 50% of its gas from Russia to 5%. Why is no-one talking about this? Whatever you think of Scholz they've accomplished a lot on that side. And yet no-one seems to want to talk about it. How Russia is losing the energy war. Is this so people and industry don't get complacent and stop minding their usage. It's weird. We should be hammering just what a mess Russia is in economically. The IMF forecasts are absurd and based on virtually no data. How can a country that has lost 2% of its workforce, a thousand major companies and isn't making money on its main export earners oil and gas be keeping its head above water?
On the Russian economy, there are a couple of things worth noting:
1. Russia had enormous foreign reserves ahead of the invasion, this has enabled them to continue to buy many of the goods they need from abroad, despite the collapse of some of their energy sales.
2. China and India are actively helping Russia sanctions-bust
3. A lot of the issues will take time to have an effect. In particular, the departure of foreign oil services companies will have a long-term negative impact on hydrocarbon production... But it takes time to see this.
I don't see how they are making a profit on the oil they are selling. And the gas I presume is just being burnt at source. If China and India are helping them evade sanctions I expect they are taking a cut.
Enormous foreign reserves? Much of them were frozen. What they do have won't last long as Deripaska warned. Perhaps they will start selling their national assets to China.
On thread - I have to say the story makes me wince. So does the idea of sending people to Rwanda. So does much of the behaviour of Braverman. Or disregarding long held conventions on individual rights. However we are ultimately going to need an immigration policy that satisfies most of the population. The alternative is permanent political discord.
Now you could try and shift public opinion as Thatcher did with TINA. Are you prepared to do that?
Have a Rwanda deal with Uganda - TSE flagged up today the biggest group crossing the channel are Indians - and forcibly remove these Indian families to Uganda if it satisfies most the population?
Seriously - @carnforth - go to Ethiopia. I see you can get a return flight for £600
Once you are there it is a stupefying country. The Danakil and Erta Ale are in the world’s top 10 destinations for OMFG
But there is so much more. It’s enormous, amazing, ancient. And it can be done so much cheaper than you think. The key is to use good local tour ops. Check their ratings online
Isn't it dangerous?
I would skip Khartoum at the moment...
The most dangerous bits are the roads and small planes, otherwise pretty safe outside the cities at night. Safaris are great, but it is possible to get sucked into a tourist ghetto thing. The cities are rarely beautiful, but have a real cultural vibrancy that is neglected here, with images of Africa flitting between stereotypes of desolation and poverty and safari in primordial landscapes.
Off topic, except in a very large sense: Voted today, in a very special election. Proposition 1would increase property taxes to fund five "crisis centers" around King County (Seattle and most suburbs). And that was the only thing on the ballot.
We do need to do something about the increasing drug use and -- often connected -- increasing mental illness in the area. (But the famous quip about doing something in "Yes, Minister" may apply.)
Care to tell us how you voted?
In interest of full disclosure, I voted to approve the measure; returned my ballot yesterday.
£290 a head for three days you will never ever forget. I see they’ve got 5 star reviews from tourists this last week. So people are going, and having fun, and not dying. Add that to a £600 return ticket London Abbie and you’ve paid £900 for the experience of a lifetime and photos to die for…
And that’s just your first few days. Another £500 will be ample to take you to some of Ethiopia’s wild parks or green mountains or buried churches
£1500 a head for a priceless world class holiday in some of the most dramatic scenery/culture in the world
Something else doesn't seem quite right either. Europe has gone from importing 50% of its gas from Russia to 5%. Why is no-one talking about this? Whatever you think of Scholz they've accomplished a lot on that side.
The last time I checked - last week - Germany were trying to talk quietly about nuclear material imports from Russia and controlling them, and Le Marcon was going "La La China La La La écureuil La La".
For BlanchLivermore, supposedly the longest non-backtracking walk on the planet...
I dread to think how many beers it would take to power that walk.
80
Around the world in 80 beers
Ninety-nine bottles of beer in the world! Ninety-nine bottles of beer! Walk a'hundred-n'fifty miles to the next bar! Ninety-nine bottles of beer in the world!
(140.5 miles per day over 99 days avg from Cape to Mag; but recommend making walk the Other way.)
Completely mental how we let in thousands of arranged brides with no skills and conservative religious views, but we deport people that have loyally supported British troops.
Seriously - @carnforth - go to Ethiopia. I see you can get a return flight for £600
Once you are there it is a stupefying country. The Danakil and Erta Ale are in the world’s top 10 destinations for OMFG
But there is so much more. It’s enormous, amazing, ancient. And it can be done so much cheaper than you think. The key is to use good local tour ops. Check their ratings online
Isn't it dangerous?
I would skip Khartoum at the moment...
The most dangerous bits are the roads and small planes, otherwise pretty safe outside the cities at night. Safaris are great, but it is possible to get sucked into a tourist ghetto thing. The cities are rarely beautiful, but have a real cultural vibrancy that is neglected here, with images of Africa flitting between stereotypes of desolation and poverty and safari in primordial landscapes.
When I was trekking the Ethiopian mountains, the two of us had to employ a guide, plus an armed guard, plus two mules and a third guy to be in charge of the mules. At that time, tbf before the outbreak of violence in the north, I got the impression the regulations were a form of job creation rather than security.
...But the famous quip about doing something in "Yes, Minister" may apply...
I love the fact that an American knows about "Yes, Minister". Well done you.... 😀
It was a staple on that great leftist conspiracy hidden behind the dread acronym PBS.
IF it's British TV, chances that US Public Broadcasting System will someday broadcast it being north of 99.46%
I did not know that, thank you
Yep. PBS even helps fund some British productions nowadays, with money up front, and sometimes in return for a little bit of input into the plot or casting. Hence the rather anachronistic American plot line that suddenly appeared in Downton Abbey.
After I got back from India I took a Greyhound trip across the States. This was in 1993. They used to have these plastic chairs in the bus stations with a small black and white TV built into them that gave you 15 minutes viewing and a choice of 4 channels (one of which was usually PBS) for a Quarter. One of the more gently surprising experiences of my life was watching Are You Being Served on Memphis bus station at 11pm at night.
After I got back from India I took a Greyhound trip across the States. This was in 1993. They used to have these plastic chairs in the bus stations with a small black and white TV built into them that gave you 15 minutes viewing and a choice of 4 channels (one of which was usually PBS) for a Quarter. One of the more gently surprising experiences of my life was watching Are You Being Served on Memphis bus station at 11pm at night.
Heaven alone knows what Memphis made of Mrs. Slocombe's pussy....
Seriously - @carnforth - go to Ethiopia. I see you can get a return flight for £600
Once you are there it is a stupefying country. The Danakil and Erta Ale are in the world’s top 10 destinations for OMFG
But there is so much more. It’s enormous, amazing, ancient. And it can be done so much cheaper than you think. The key is to use good local tour ops. Check their ratings online
Isn't it dangerous?
I would skip Khartoum at the moment...
The most dangerous bits are the roads and small planes, otherwise pretty safe outside the cities at night. Safaris are great, but it is possible to get sucked into a tourist ghetto thing. The cities are rarely beautiful, but have a real cultural vibrancy that is neglected here, with images of Africa flitting between stereotypes of desolation and poverty and safari in primordial landscapes.
When I was trekking the Ethiopian mountains, the two of us had to employ a guide, plus an armed guard, plus two mules and a third guy to be in charge of the mules. At that time, tbf before the outbreak of violence in the north, I got the impression the regulations were a form of job creation rather than security.
"It is the business of the wealthy man To give employment to the artisan."
After I got back from India I took a Greyhound trip across the States. This was in 1993. They used to have these plastic chairs in the bus stations with a small black and white TV built into them that gave you 15 minutes viewing and a choice of 4 channels (one of which was usually PBS) for a Quarter. One of the more gently surprising experiences of my life was watching Are You Being Served on Memphis bus station at 11pm at night.
I hope your pussy didn't react badly to the change in timezones.
After I got back from India I took a Greyhound trip across the States. This was in 1993. They used to have these plastic chairs in the bus stations with a small black and white TV built into them that gave you 15 minutes viewing and a choice of 4 channels (one of which was usually PBS) for a Quarter. One of the more gently surprising experiences of my life was watching Are You Being Served on Memphis bus station at 11pm at night.
Heaven alone knows what Memphis made of Mrs. Slocombe's pussy....
On topic, it's a sensational article designed to illicit an emotional response.
I note that the bit where Home Office has put further removals on review pending a review is not included, nor is the fact they were evacuated from Kabul to the UK as a gesture of goodwill with an understanding they would return to Nepal.
Nepal is not an unsafe country. It might have been on the red list for Coronovirus at the time, but that does not make it dangerous. It can be subject to political protests and is a poor country but that does not make it dangerous. Many said they "believed" their lives to be in danger, but we don't know if they actually were - not if they changed their story when it became clear they would be returned because they wanted to move here and thought working for the British would be a way to achieve that. It also says that many have since "made their way back" - the implication here is either another flight or, far more likely, people smugglers and boats. And it also says "some of them" were doing identical work to Afghanistan's, who were granted indefinite leave to remain, and the implication is therefore that not all of them were - we don't know in what capacity they worked at the embassy, either internally or externally, or for how long, nor the risk that posed.
There is far more to this story than meets the eye, and I suspect it's complex and nuanced.
The UK has a strong record of generosity when it comes to Nepal, including the resettlement of the Gurkas and their families, and a close partnership with the Nepalese government. Yes, the Home Office may have screwed up with some individual cases within this mix but I suspect the truth is far more complicated than the Left-wing Daily Mail implies.
Completely mental how we let in thousands of arranged brides with no skills and conservative religious views, but we deport people that have loyally supported British troops.
I think the particular problem here is that the government wants to announce that it has deported [x] number of people. And the people it is easiest to deport are the people who are law abiding and have stayed in the hotel where they're supposed to be, rather than disappearing into the black market.
Something else doesn't seem quite right either. Europe has gone from importing 50% of its gas from Russia to 5%. Why is no-one talking about this? Whatever you think of Scholz they've accomplished a lot on that side.
The last time I checked - last week - Germany were trying to talk quietly about nuclear material imports from Russia and controlling them, and Le Marcon was going "La La China La La La écureuil La La".
The UK has a strong record of generosity when it comes to Nepal, including the resettlement of the Gurkas and their families ...
When Joanna Lumley is standing over a government minister in front of a TV camera, yes.
The point is that this is a sliding scale, and not an absolute.
We can't allow ourselves to get to a position where working for us in any capacity, anywhere in the world, for any length of time essentially automatically qualifies you for resettlement: it needs to be based on risk, type of service, length of service and the merits of the individual case. Just as any other immigration qualification would require.
I can fully believe the Home Office acted incompetently in a few of these cases, but do I believe they were being immoral and unethical on all of these overall?
Completely mental how we let in thousands of arranged brides with no skills and conservative religious views, but we deport people that have loyally supported British troops.
Plenty of immigration decisions are indeed illogical. However, we don't know here if all of them were working to guard British troops, or if they were simply employed sitting in an office watching CCTV cameras for a few nightshifts over a couple of weeks, as plenty of locally-hired embassy staff do around the world in British embassies.
The UK has a strong record of generosity when it comes to Nepal, including the resettlement of the Gurkas and their families ...
When Joanna Lumley is standing over a government minister in front of a TV camera, yes.
The point is that this is a sliding scale, and not an absolute.
We can't allow ourselves to get to a position where working for us in any capacity, anywhere in the world, for any length of time essentially automatically qualifies you for resettlement: it needs to be based on risk, type of service, length of service and the merits of the individual case. Just as any other immigration qualification would require.
I can fully believe the Home Office acted incompetently in a few of these cases, but do I believe they were being immoral and unethical on all of these overall?
No.
I can believe the current Home Office is capable of being both on a regular basis.
There is a fundamental lack of decency about this government. A meanness of spirit that, despite their best endeavours to shape the country in their image, doesn't sit right with British ideas of fair play, generosity and kindness.
THE SNP’s Westminster leader and his predecessor have clashed over the party’s search for auditors.
Ian Blackford claims he was told on April 7 that new accountants were in place, but that has been disputed by Stephen Flynn, who said no definitive assurance was given.
The row between the two men threatened to overshadow Humza Yousaf’s first visit to the Westminster group since replacing Nicola Sturgeon.
The bolded bit at the end was new to me. Is it a Brexit benefit ?
...MacLean and colleagues are not calling for the development of such drugs to be put on hold, but say extremely careful risk assessments of the likelihood of resistance emerging and the potential consequences are required. “For AMPs, there are potentially very serious negative consequences,” he said.
Dr Jessica Blair, of the University of Birmingham, who was not involved in the study, said: “Antimicrobial peptides, including colistin, have been heralded as a potential part of the solution to the rise of multidrug-resistant infections. This study, however, suggests that resistance to these antimicrobials may have unintended consequences on the ability of pathogens to cause infection and survive within the host.”
Dr George Tegos, of Mohawk Valley Health System in New York, said that broad conclusions about the potential risks of AMPs could not be drawn from a single study, but added that the findings “raise concerns that are reasonable and make sense”.
Cóilín Nunan, an adviser to the Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics, who was not involved in the study, said: “This new study shows that colistin resistance is probably even more dangerous than previously thought … It is also remarkable that the British government is still opposed to banning preventative mass medication of intensively farmed animals with antibiotics, even though the EU banned such use over a year ago.”
Completely mental how we let in thousands of arranged brides with no skills and conservative religious views, but we deport people that have loyally supported British troops.
Plenty of immigration decisions are indeed illogical. However, we don't know here if all of them were working to guard British troops, or if they were simply employed sitting in an office watching CCTV cameras for a few nightshifts over a couple of weeks, as plenty of locally-hired embassy staff do around the world in British embassies.
I suspect it's nuanced.
There are some other relevant things, IE what was the agreement with the people involved. If they are security guards on a contract, then the stance seems on the face of it to be reasonable - the British government facilitated their repatriation to their home country when the work was abandoned.
The UK has a strong record of generosity when it comes to Nepal, including the resettlement of the Gurkas and their families ...
When Joanna Lumley is standing over a government minister in front of a TV camera, yes.
The point is that this is a sliding scale, and not an absolute.
We can't allow ourselves to get to a position where working for us in any capacity, anywhere in the world, for any length of time essentially automatically qualifies you for resettlement: it needs to be based on risk, type of service, length of service and the merits of the individual case. Just as any other immigration qualification would require.
I can fully believe the Home Office acted incompetently in a few of these cases, but do I believe they were being immoral and unethical on all of these overall?
No.
Around the world, particularly in insecure countries, UK embassy guards are Nepalese. They are rated because of their reliability, loyalty and resistance to corruption.
Sure, it shouldn't mean an automatic visa, indeed redeployment to another embassy on a similar contract would seem reasonable. Odd though that these people were deported despite having six month visas.
The bolded bit at the end was new to me. Is it a Brexit benefit ?
...MacLean and colleagues are not calling for the development of such drugs to be put on hold, but say extremely careful risk assessments of the likelihood of resistance emerging and the potential consequences are required. “For AMPs, there are potentially very serious negative consequences,” he said.
Dr Jessica Blair, of the University of Birmingham, who was not involved in the study, said: “Antimicrobial peptides, including colistin, have been heralded as a potential part of the solution to the rise of multidrug-resistant infections. This study, however, suggests that resistance to these antimicrobials may have unintended consequences on the ability of pathogens to cause infection and survive within the host.”
Dr George Tegos, of Mohawk Valley Health System in New York, said that broad conclusions about the potential risks of AMPs could not be drawn from a single study, but added that the findings “raise concerns that are reasonable and make sense”.
Cóilín Nunan, an adviser to the Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics, who was not involved in the study, said: “This new study shows that colistin resistance is probably even more dangerous than previously thought … It is also remarkable that the British government is still opposed to banning preventative mass medication of intensively farmed animals with antibiotics, even though the EU banned such use over a year ago.”
Several colleagues have had chest infections for weeks. Antibiotics don't seem to be shifting it.
THE SNP’s Westminster leader and his predecessor have clashed over the party’s search for auditors.
Ian Blackford claims he was told on April 7 that new accountants were in place, but that has been disputed by Stephen Flynn, who said no definitive assurance was given.
The row between the two men threatened to overshadow Humza Yousaf’s first visit to the Westminster group since replacing Nicola Sturgeon.
These people are still talking to each other in public, and to journalists, as if it were business and politics as usual, and the polis didn’t raid their offices and arrest the CEO and CFO a couple of weeks back? Sturgeon was in front of cameras yesterday too, trying to give a sob story. Just STFU the lot of you, before someone ends up being done for perjury.
We'll only be getting into mid-Staffs territory (under Labour, remember...) if we start ignoring when the NHS fails patients, and indeed start denigrating and smearing people who attempt to point it out.
There were two problems at Stafford: it was being terribly run, and there were attempts to cover-up the failures. One was a local issue; the other national.
(For non-regular readers; a member of my family was mistreated at Stafford hospital by callous staff.)
The UK has a strong record of generosity when it comes to Nepal, including the resettlement of the Gurkas and their families ...
When Joanna Lumley is standing over a government minister in front of a TV camera, yes.
The point is that this is a sliding scale, and not an absolute.
We can't allow ourselves to get to a position where working for us in any capacity, anywhere in the world, for any length of time essentially automatically qualifies you for resettlement: it needs to be based on risk, type of service, length of service and the merits of the individual case. Just as any other immigration qualification would require.
I can fully believe the Home Office acted incompetently in a few of these cases, but do I believe they were being immoral and unethical on all of these overall?
No.
Around the world, particularly in insecure countries, UK embassy guards are Nepalese. They are rated because of their reliability, loyalty and resistance to corruption.
Sure, it shouldn't mean an automatic visa, indeed redeployment to another embassy on a similar contract would seem reasonable. Odd though that these people were deported despite having six month visas.
It may be that the granting of those visas was simply a formality to allow them admission into the country - on a temporary basis.
The important thing back in 2021 was to get everyone out - fast - and this might have been one of several mechanisms to achieve that.
So to be clear this story is that we employed the Nepalese to work at our embassy etc. in Afghanistan. Having done that they were at risk when Afghanistan collapsed so we got them out to safety but at no stage did we promise them that they could live in the UK as a reward for their service.
I totally get that we could and arguably should have made different choices but the argument that anyone who works for us anywhere in the world is entitled to come and live here (presumably with their families) if things go sideways is surely irrational. If we apply that criteria we will simply stop employing such people.
There is a stronger case to be made for Afghans who worked for us on the basis that they cannot go home but people from a third country who can? I am not seeing it as a principle although there are always hard cases when you look at the individuals.
For BlanchLivermore, supposedly the longest non-backtracking walk on the planet...
I dread to think how many beers it would take to power that walk.
Years ago, a guy tried to walk a longer walk around the world; from the tip of South America to Alaska, then across the Bering Strait when it was frozen, and then through Asia back to Britain (where IIRC he was hoping to get permission to walk through the Channel Tunnel).
He got problems with permission to walk through Russia.
So to be clear this story is that we employed the Nepalese to work at our embassy etc. in Afghanistan. Having done that they were at risk when Afghanistan collapsed so we got them out to safety but at no stage did we promise them that they could live in the UK as a reward for their service.
I totally get that we could and arguably should have made different choices but the argument that anyone who works for us anywhere in the world is entitled to come and live here (presumably with their families) if things go sideways is surely irrational. If we apply that criteria we will simply stop employing such people.
There is a stronger case to be made for Afghans who worked for us on the basis that they cannot go home but people from a third country who can? I am not seeing it as a principle although there are always hard cases when you look at the individuals.
We'll only be getting into mid-Staffs territory (under Labour, remember...) if we start ignoring when the NHS fails patients, and indeed start denigrating and smearing people who attempt to point it out.
There were two problems at Stafford: it was being terribly run, and there were attempts to cover-up the failures. One was a local issue; the other national.
(For non-regular readers; a member of my family was mistreated at Stafford hospital by callous staff.)
Don't worry, regular and non-regular readers will have plenty of experiences of friends and family being mistreated by NHS staff.
In my case most recently a friend broke his neck and the nurses refused to feed/water him as they were in a hissy fit. His daughter was there at the time and promptly burst into tears.
I needed to explain to the family that very, very often the only way you get half-decent treatment from the NHS is to threaten them (PALS, ICB, police, whatever).
Sad but true. If you stand out amongst the huge numbers they treat as someone they must actually take proper care of then you are in with a chance. This of course is often achieved via charm and being polite, and following orders but this is by no means assured.
We'll only be getting into mid-Staffs territory (under Labour, remember...) if we start ignoring when the NHS fails patients, and indeed start denigrating and smearing people who attempt to point it out.
There were two problems at Stafford: it was being terribly run, and there were attempts to cover-up the failures. One was a local issue; the other national.
(For non-regular readers; a member of my family was mistreated at Stafford hospital by callous staff.)
Cannock Chase saw the highest swing against Labour in 2010 and a further exceptional swing in 2015.
The first was due to Mid Staffs and Burnham’s blundering attempts to deal with it.
The second was due to Janos Toth’s literally insane decision to campaign on ‘Save the NHS,’ which was an absolute gift to his opponents and cost him a seat that before the election, national swing or no, looked an easy gain.
For BlanchLivermore, supposedly the longest non-backtracking walk on the planet...
I dread to think how many beers it would take to power that walk.
Years ago, a guy tried to walk a longer walk around the world; from the tip of South America to Alaska, then across the Bering Strait when it was frozen, and then through Asia back to Britain (where IIRC he was hoping to get permission to walk through the Channel Tunnel).
He got problems with permission to walk through Russia.
So to be clear this story is that we employed the Nepalese to work at our embassy etc. in Afghanistan. Having done that they were at risk when Afghanistan collapsed so we got them out to safety but at no stage did we promise them that they could live in the UK as a reward for their service.
I totally get that we could and arguably should have made different choices but the argument that anyone who works for us anywhere in the world is entitled to come and live here (presumably with their families) if things go sideways is surely irrational. If we apply that criteria we will simply stop employing such people.
There is a stronger case to be made for Afghans who worked for us on the basis that they cannot go home but people from a third country who can? I am not seeing it as a principle although there are always hard cases when you look at the individuals.
Isn’t Nepal a red country?
I believe it was at the time but these employees had come from there to work on a contract and were presumably intending to go home at some point. The red country status means that those applying for asylum from there should not be returned. Did any of them claim asylum on the basis that they were scared of returning home? Were they even given a chance to? They couldn't apply for asylum because of their service in a third country.
So to be clear this story is that we employed the Nepalese to work at our embassy etc. in Afghanistan. Having done that they were at risk when Afghanistan collapsed so we got them out to safety but at no stage did we promise them that they could live in the UK as a reward for their service.
I totally get that we could and arguably should have made different choices but the argument that anyone who works for us anywhere in the world is entitled to come and live here (presumably with their families) if things go sideways is surely irrational. If we apply that criteria we will simply stop employing such people.
There is a stronger case to be made for Afghans who worked for us on the basis that they cannot go home but people from a third country who can? I am not seeing it as a principle although there are always hard cases when you look at the individuals.
It’s almost as if the newspaper publishing this piece, doesn’t have a long record of very carefully writing articles on this subject, and omitting key details, so as to completely change the actual situation one might assume from reading their story.
So to be clear this story is that we employed the Nepalese to work at our embassy etc. in Afghanistan. Having done that they were at risk when Afghanistan collapsed so we got them out to safety but at no stage did we promise them that they could live in the UK as a reward for their service.
I totally get that we could and arguably should have made different choices but the argument that anyone who works for us anywhere in the world is entitled to come and live here (presumably with their families) if things go sideways is surely irrational. If we apply that criteria we will simply stop employing such people.
There is a stronger case to be made for Afghans who worked for us on the basis that they cannot go home but people from a third country who can? I am not seeing it as a principle although there are always hard cases when you look at the individuals.
Isn’t Nepal a red country?
I believe it was at the time but these employees had come from there to work on a contract and were presumably intending to go home at some point. The red country status means that those applying for asylum from there should not be returned. Did any of them claim asylum on the basis that they were scared of returning home? Were they even given a chance to? They couldn't apply for asylum because of their service in a third country.
But why were they deported to an unsafe country if they had six month visas that had not expired?
You're the lawyer, not me, but on the facts as presented it looks as if the law's been broken by the government just to show they can. Which should worry us all.
It's all of a price with Braverman's utter contempt for the law, for which frankly I think she should be disbarred (not that she will be) but it obviously goes wider than her.
So to be clear this story is that we employed the Nepalese to work at our embassy etc. in Afghanistan. Having done that they were at risk when Afghanistan collapsed so we got them out to safety but at no stage did we promise them that they could live in the UK as a reward for their service.
I totally get that we could and arguably should have made different choices but the argument that anyone who works for us anywhere in the world is entitled to come and live here (presumably with their families) if things go sideways is surely irrational. If we apply that criteria we will simply stop employing such people.
There is a stronger case to be made for Afghans who worked for us on the basis that they cannot go home but people from a third country who can? I am not seeing it as a principle although there are always hard cases when you look at the individuals.
Isn’t Nepal a red country?
I believe it was at the time but these employees had come from there to work on a contract and were presumably intending to go home at some point. The red country status means that those applying for asylum from there should not be returned. Did any of them claim asylum on the basis that they were scared of returning home? Were they even given a chance to? They couldn't apply for asylum because of their service in a third country.
But why were they deported to an unsafe country if they had six month visas that had not expired?
You're the lawyer, not me, but on the facts as presented it looks as if the law's been broken by the government just to show they can. Which should worry us all.
It's all of a price with Braverman's utter contempt for the law, for which frankly I think she should be disbarred (not that she will be) but it obviously goes wider than her.
The report says "many" of them were given a 6 month visa. I am surprised by that. Why? The report also says: "[the Home Office} said the evacuees were flown from Kabul as “a gesture of goodwill” with the understanding that they were expected to return to their home countries."
If that was the deal when they got on the plane I really fail to understand how they would have been given visas.
I should make it clear I have no time for Braverman or various aspects of the government's asylum policy, specifically this Rwanda nonsense, but this seems to me to be no more than clickbait. Note the use of the word "secretly" to make it sound more sinister, for example. Who, exactly, were they supposed to tell?
The Rest is Politics (Rory Stewart & Alistair Campbell) is interesting today. The first half hour covers Politicians vs. civil servants (from Raab to Blair via Churchill), and Diane Abbott, with Rory suggesting her letter reads as if it might have been drafted by a staffer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M0WiWYIRSM or your podcast platform of choice.
So to be clear this story is that we employed the Nepalese to work at our embassy etc. in Afghanistan. Having done that they were at risk when Afghanistan collapsed so we got them out to safety but at no stage did we promise them that they could live in the UK as a reward for their service.
I totally get that we could and arguably should have made different choices but the argument that anyone who works for us anywhere in the world is entitled to come and live here (presumably with their families) if things go sideways is surely irrational. If we apply that criteria we will simply stop employing such people.
There is a stronger case to be made for Afghans who worked for us on the basis that they cannot go home but people from a third country who can? I am not seeing it as a principle although there are always hard cases when you look at the individuals.
Isn’t Nepal a red country?
I believe it was at the time but these employees had come from there to work on a contract and were presumably intending to go home at some point. The red country status means that those applying for asylum from there should not be returned. Did any of them claim asylum on the basis that they were scared of returning home? Were they even given a chance to? They couldn't apply for asylum because of their service in a third country.
But why were they deported to an unsafe country if they had six month visas that had not expired?
You're the lawyer, not me, but on the facts as presented it looks as if the law's been broken by the government just to show they can. Which should worry us all.
It's all of a price with Braverman's utter contempt for the law, for which frankly I think she should be disbarred (not that she will be) but it obviously goes wider than her.
The report says "many" of them were given a 6 month visa. I am surprised by that. Why? The report also says: "[the Home Office} said the evacuees were flown from Kabul as “a gesture of goodwill” with the understanding that they were expected to return to their home countries.
If that was the deal when they got on the plane I really fail to understand how they would have been given visas.
But it appears they were.
Were they revoked? Was proper notice given? Were the people affected given the opportunity to apply for asylum?
As it happens, this does demonstrate we're not getting the full facts, but at the moment in the absence of further info it looks extremely bad. As in, should see a number of people at least fired.
So to be clear this story is that we employed the Nepalese to work at our embassy etc. in Afghanistan. Having done that they were at risk when Afghanistan collapsed so we got them out to safety but at no stage did we promise them that they could live in the UK as a reward for their service.
I totally get that we could and arguably should have made different choices but the argument that anyone who works for us anywhere in the world is entitled to come and live here (presumably with their families) if things go sideways is surely irrational. If we apply that criteria we will simply stop employing such people.
There is a stronger case to be made for Afghans who worked for us on the basis that they cannot go home but people from a third country who can? I am not seeing it as a principle although there are always hard cases when you look at the individuals.
It’s almost as if the newspaper publishing this piece, doesn’t have a long record of very carefully writing articles on this subject, and omitting key details, so as to completely change the actual situation one might assume from reading their story.
The other way of considering it is that were the media to wait until they had full information before publishing, many of these stories would not get reported at all. Which would be very convenient for the Bravermans in government.
There's a reasonable argument about how long Gray should be forced to stay on gardening leave. It's absolutely not Case's job to decide that.
Maybe the clock on her gardening leave should start once Starmer gives some straight answers on when she was first approached to join his team.
Or...
Swap things round. Put Gray in charge of the civil service and send Case to work for Labour.
We get a good head of the Civil Service, lose a pretty useless one, remove an individual who thinks laws don't apply to him and from your point of view ot has the further upside the useless twat would be working for Labour.
There's a reasonable argument about how long Gray should be forced to stay on gardening leave. It's absolutely not Case's job to decide that.
Maybe the clock on her gardening leave should start once Starmer gives some straight answers on when she was first approached to join his team.
One of Starmer’s biggest mis-steps as leader, and yes, he’s still not given a totally straight answer on the timeline.
The situation is totally unprecedented, someone moving a very senior position in the permanent CS, straight to the LotO office. There would be huge potential issues of confidentiality and access to documents.
IIRC the rule for a minister taking up certain roles in the private sector is two years, that’s probably the closest alternative they can use.
What sort of immigration policy and thinking is producing this nonsense?
And is this leading to a catastrophic crash of faith in Sunak’s government?
So many experienced Tory MPs started shaking their heads and muttering the moment Sunak and Braverman launched this bold “stop the boats” promises. Not because these MPs are soft on crossings soft on the causes of crossings, but because they are rightly wary and weary of front bench OVER-PROMISING.
the language the Conservative Party always used to describe those coming across the channel to surrender to border staff, has been asylum is not immigration. Sunak and Bravermans policy changed this, completely changed it in the minds of voters in the promises they have made. Those on the boats now all thought of as illegals, and processed as illegals is what voters think will happen from the language and rhetoric
The problem there is so obvious. Processing has been giving out 70% 80% asylum to stay in UK to many groups of them. Increasing processing speed can now quickly turn out results completely at odds with the government’s new rhetoric, the promises of change of policy to actually sorting the whole problem, is now in voters minds. Sunak promised to deliver.
Asylum is not immigration. And there is no fix to this, this side of the next election. The Tories should have stuck to pushing that to voters, not made the stupid mistake Sunak and Braverman did a couple of months ago. This mistake appears irrecoverable now this side of the general election, despite Sunak already trying to recover the mistake and row back (no pun intended, but it was the big take out from his ConHome interview) on what he promised voters.
In other words, the new asylum policy, what some still call a big win, it’s already unravelling into a mess
If anyone thinks the Tories and Sunak ratings will continue to make steady but certain progress from here to election day, without sharp falls from the betrayal of Sunak over promising, the fall in trust in him, think again.
So to be clear this story is that we employed the Nepalese to work at our embassy etc. in Afghanistan. Having done that they were at risk when Afghanistan collapsed so we got them out to safety but at no stage did we promise them that they could live in the UK as a reward for their service.
I totally get that we could and arguably should have made different choices but the argument that anyone who works for us anywhere in the world is entitled to come and live here (presumably with their families) if things go sideways is surely irrational. If we apply that criteria we will simply stop employing such people.
There is a stronger case to be made for Afghans who worked for us on the basis that they cannot go home but people from a third country who can? I am not seeing it as a principle although there are always hard cases when you look at the individuals.
Isn’t Nepal a red country?
I believe it was at the time but these employees had come from there to work on a contract and were presumably intending to go home at some point. The red country status means that those applying for asylum from there should not be returned. Did any of them claim asylum on the basis that they were scared of returning home? Were they even given a chance to? They couldn't apply for asylum because of their service in a third country.
But why were they deported to an unsafe country if they had six month visas that had not expired?
You're the lawyer, not me, but on the facts as presented it looks as if the law's been broken by the government just to show they can. Which should worry us all.
It's all of a price with Braverman's utter contempt for the law, for which frankly I think she should be disbarred (not that she will be) but it obviously goes wider than her.
The report says "many" of them were given a 6 month visa. I am surprised by that. Why? The report also says: "[the Home Office} said the evacuees were flown from Kabul as “a gesture of goodwill” with the understanding that they were expected to return to their home countries.
If that was the deal when they got on the plane I really fail to understand how they would have been given visas.
But it appears they were.
Were they revoked? Was proper notice given? Were the people affected given the opportunity to apply for asylum?
As it happens, this does demonstrate we're not getting the full facts, but at the moment in the absence of further info it looks extremely bad. As in, should see a number of people at least fired.
I agree that we don't have the full facts. I am very doubtful that they were given 6 month visas to stay in the UK on the facts as disclosed. It seems the exact opposite of the deal described.
So to be clear this story is that we employed the Nepalese to work at our embassy etc. in Afghanistan. Having done that they were at risk when Afghanistan collapsed so we got them out to safety but at no stage did we promise them that they could live in the UK as a reward for their service.
I totally get that we could and arguably should have made different choices but the argument that anyone who works for us anywhere in the world is entitled to come and live here (presumably with their families) if things go sideways is surely irrational. If we apply that criteria we will simply stop employing such people.
There is a stronger case to be made for Afghans who worked for us on the basis that they cannot go home but people from a third country who can? I am not seeing it as a principle although there are always hard cases when you look at the individuals.
Isn’t Nepal a red country?
I believe it was at the time but these employees had come from there to work on a contract and were presumably intending to go home at some point. The red country status means that those applying for asylum from there should not be returned. Did any of them claim asylum on the basis that they were scared of returning home? Were they even given a chance to? They couldn't apply for asylum because of their service in a third country.
But why were they deported to an unsafe country if they had six month visas that had not expired?
You're the lawyer, not me, but on the facts as presented it looks as if the law's been broken by the government just to show they can. Which should worry us all.
It's all of a price with Braverman's utter contempt for the law, for which frankly I think she should be disbarred (not that she will be) but it obviously goes wider than her.
The report says "many" of them were given a 6 month visa. I am surprised by that. Why? The report also says: "[the Home Office} said the evacuees were flown from Kabul as “a gesture of goodwill” with the understanding that they were expected to return to their home countries.
If that was the deal when they got on the plane I really fail to understand how they would have been given visas.
But it appears they were.
Were they revoked? Was proper notice given? Were the people affected given the opportunity to apply for asylum?
As it happens, this does demonstrate we're not getting the full facts, but at the moment in the absence of further info it looks extremely bad. As in, should see a number of people at least fired.
And, sad to say, neither the Home Office nor the Home Secretary have a perfect record for getting things right. By which I mean truthful.
So to be clear this story is that we employed the Nepalese to work at our embassy etc. in Afghanistan. Having done that they were at risk when Afghanistan collapsed so we got them out to safety but at no stage did we promise them that they could live in the UK as a reward for their service.
I totally get that we could and arguably should have made different choices but the argument that anyone who works for us anywhere in the world is entitled to come and live here (presumably with their families) if things go sideways is surely irrational. If we apply that criteria we will simply stop employing such people.
There is a stronger case to be made for Afghans who worked for us on the basis that they cannot go home but people from a third country who can? I am not seeing it as a principle although there are always hard cases when you look at the individuals.
It’s almost as if the newspaper publishing this piece, doesn’t have a long record of very carefully writing articles on this subject, and omitting key details, so as to completely change the actual situation one might assume from reading their story.
The other way of considering it is that were the media to wait until they had full information before publishing, many of these stories would not get reported at all. Which would be very convenient for the Bravermans in government.
Nah, the Guardian has a very long record of totally misleading immigration stories, written extremely carefully so that there’s nothing factually incorrect, but often by omission completely changing the meaning of the actual events, as a lay person might understand them.
So to be clear this story is that we employed the Nepalese to work at our embassy etc. in Afghanistan. Having done that they were at risk when Afghanistan collapsed so we got them out to safety but at no stage did we promise them that they could live in the UK as a reward for their service.
I totally get that we could and arguably should have made different choices but the argument that anyone who works for us anywhere in the world is entitled to come and live here (presumably with their families) if things go sideways is surely irrational. If we apply that criteria we will simply stop employing such people.
There is a stronger case to be made for Afghans who worked for us on the basis that they cannot go home but people from a third country who can? I am not seeing it as a principle although there are always hard cases when you look at the individuals.
Isn’t Nepal a red country?
I believe it was at the time but these employees had come from there to work on a contract and were presumably intending to go home at some point. The red country status means that those applying for asylum from there should not be returned. Did any of them claim asylum on the basis that they were scared of returning home? Were they even given a chance to? They couldn't apply for asylum because of their service in a third country.
But why were they deported to an unsafe country if they had six month visas that had not expired?
You're the lawyer, not me, but on the facts as presented it looks as if the law's been broken by the government just to show they can. Which should worry us all.
It's all of a price with Braverman's utter contempt for the law, for which frankly I think she should be disbarred (not that she will be) but it obviously goes wider than her.
There is much to be condemned about the post GE2019 Government, but most of the instruments of the media seem to be owned or managed by like-minded souls, so we, Johnny Public, rarely learn how outrageous and malign this administration really is.
The voter suppression project would be condemned were such a stunt pulled by any other party. Sunak appears to be the smiling face reassuring us that what operates behind really can't be that bad, which is why we arrive at Ghurka allies being thrown to the wolves.
The Rest is Politics (Rory Stewart & Alistair Campbell) is interesting today. The first half hour covers Politicians vs. civil servants (from Raab to Blair via Churchill), and Diane Abbott, with Rory suggesting her letter reads as if it might have been drafted by a staffer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M0WiWYIRSM or your podcast platform of choice.
The Rest is Politics is apparently the most successful podcast atm.
I listened to one and thought it dreadful. They couldn't stop violently agreeing with each other or if not agreeing then Rory accepting what a fantastic point AC had just made. It reminded me of the Spitting Image sketch with David Steel and David Owen. Rory should be more of a Tory (for the podcast to work).
Alistair Campbell and Dominic Cumming (or Nigel Farage), say. Now that is a podcast I would listen to.
Morning all! On topic, why are we surprised? Today's English nationalist cult Party is foreign-phobic. If swarthy-types helped us when we messed around on their patch, that was their duty. We owe them nothing, and certainly don't want to be invaded by them! Whats wrong with gollywogs anyway? etc.
Apparently we can only be free as a nation if we are imprisoned by blind prejudice against anyone who doesn't agree with whatever it is we're dog-whistling this week.
So to be clear this story is that we employed the Nepalese to work at our embassy etc. in Afghanistan. Having done that they were at risk when Afghanistan collapsed so we got them out to safety but at no stage did we promise them that they could live in the UK as a reward for their service.
I totally get that we could and arguably should have made different choices but the argument that anyone who works for us anywhere in the world is entitled to come and live here (presumably with their families) if things go sideways is surely irrational. If we apply that criteria we will simply stop employing such people.
There is a stronger case to be made for Afghans who worked for us on the basis that they cannot go home but people from a third country who can? I am not seeing it as a principle although there are always hard cases when you look at the individuals.
It’s almost as if the newspaper publishing this piece, doesn’t have a long record of very carefully writing articles on this subject, and omitting key details, so as to completely change the actual situation one might assume from reading their story.
Considering the details that you quote are taken from the Guardian article, I struggle to see what you think they are omitting, deliberately so by your implication.
So to be clear this story is that we employed the Nepalese to work at our embassy etc. in Afghanistan. Having done that they were at risk when Afghanistan collapsed so we got them out to safety but at no stage did we promise them that they could live in the UK as a reward for their service.
I totally get that we could and arguably should have made different choices but the argument that anyone who works for us anywhere in the world is entitled to come and live here (presumably with their families) if things go sideways is surely irrational. If we apply that criteria we will simply stop employing such people.
There is a stronger case to be made for Afghans who worked for us on the basis that they cannot go home but people from a third country who can? I am not seeing it as a principle although there are always hard cases when you look at the individuals.
Isn’t Nepal a red country?
I believe it was at the time but these employees had come from there to work on a contract and were presumably intending to go home at some point. The red country status means that those applying for asylum from there should not be returned. Did any of them claim asylum on the basis that they were scared of returning home? Were they even given a chance to? They couldn't apply for asylum because of their service in a third country.
But why were they deported to an unsafe country if they had six month visas that had not expired?
You're the lawyer, not me, but on the facts as presented it looks as if the law's been broken by the government just to show they can. Which should worry us all.
It's all of a price with Braverman's utter contempt for the law, for which frankly I think she should be disbarred (not that she will be) but it obviously goes wider than her.
The report says "many" of them were given a 6 month visa. I am surprised by that. Why? The report also says: "[the Home Office} said the evacuees were flown from Kabul as “a gesture of goodwill” with the understanding that they were expected to return to their home countries.
If that was the deal when they got on the plane I really fail to understand how they would have been given visas.
But it appears they were.
Were they revoked? Was proper notice given? Were the people affected given the opportunity to apply for asylum?
As it happens, this does demonstrate we're not getting the full facts, but at the moment in the absence of further info it looks extremely bad. As in, should see a number of people at least fired.
I agree that we don't have the full facts. I am very doubtful that they were given 6 month visas to stay in the UK on the facts as disclosed. It seems the exact opposite of the deal described.
It is of course possible they were given them by mistake.
That would be entirely in character for the Home Office and indeed the current civil service.
But having been given them in error, procedures to revoke them should still apply. Were they applied here?
So to be clear this story is that we employed the Nepalese to work at our embassy etc. in Afghanistan. Having done that they were at risk when Afghanistan collapsed so we got them out to safety but at no stage did we promise them that they could live in the UK as a reward for their service.
I totally get that we could and arguably should have made different choices but the argument that anyone who works for us anywhere in the world is entitled to come and live here (presumably with their families) if things go sideways is surely irrational. If we apply that criteria we will simply stop employing such people.
There is a stronger case to be made for Afghans who worked for us on the basis that they cannot go home but people from a third country who can? I am not seeing it as a principle although there are always hard cases when you look at the individuals.
It’s almost as if the newspaper publishing this piece, doesn’t have a long record of very carefully writing articles on this subject, and omitting key details, so as to completely change the actual situation one might assume from reading their story.
The other way of considering it is that were the media to wait until they had full information before publishing, many of these stories would not get reported at all. Which would be very convenient for the Bravermans in government.
Nah, the Guardian has a very long record of totally misleading immigration stories, written extremely carefully so that there’s nothing factually incorrect, but often by omission completely changing the meaning of the actual events, as a lay person might understand them.
Cites ? I'm sure there are examples, but a quick google tend to turn up stories about dishonest articles by the Mail, and stuff like this.
The Rest is Politics (Rory Stewart & Alistair Campbell) is interesting today. The first half hour covers Politicians vs. civil servants (from Raab to Blair via Churchill), and Diane Abbott, with Rory suggesting her letter reads as if it might have been drafted by a staffer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M0WiWYIRSM or your podcast platform of choice.
The Rest is Politics is apparently the most successful podcast atm.
I listened to one and thought it dreadful. They couldn't stop violently agreeing with each other or if not agreeing then Rory accepting what a fantastic point AC had just made. It reminded me of the Spitting Image sketch with David Steel and David Owen. Rory should be more of a Tory (for the podcast to work).
Alistair Campbell and Dominic Cumming (or Nigel Farage), say. Now that is a podcast I would listen to.
Apparently their live appearances sell out faster than Eurovision (or at least, quite fast).
So to be clear this story is that we employed the Nepalese to work at our embassy etc. in Afghanistan. Having done that they were at risk when Afghanistan collapsed so we got them out to safety but at no stage did we promise them that they could live in the UK as a reward for their service.
I totally get that we could and arguably should have made different choices but the argument that anyone who works for us anywhere in the world is entitled to come and live here (presumably with their families) if things go sideways is surely irrational. If we apply that criteria we will simply stop employing such people.
There is a stronger case to be made for Afghans who worked for us on the basis that they cannot go home but people from a third country who can? I am not seeing it as a principle although there are always hard cases when you look at the individuals.
It’s almost as if the newspaper publishing this piece, doesn’t have a long record of very carefully writing articles on this subject, and omitting key details, so as to completely change the actual situation one might assume from reading their story.
The other way of considering it is that were the media to wait until they had full information before publishing, many of these stories would not get reported at all. Which would be very convenient for the Bravermans in government.
Nah, the Guardian has a very long record of totally misleading immigration stories, written extremely carefully so that there’s nothing factually incorrect, but often by omission completely changing the meaning of the actual events, as a lay person might understand them.
Cites ? I'm sure there are examples, but a quick google tend to turn up stories about dishonest articles by the Mail, and stuff like this.
You have to read the story really, *really* carefully, to understand that they turned up at the border with no immigration paperwork at all, when they were arriving for a series of paid concerts at licenced venues.
We can all argue about what immigration paperwork *should* be required of a touring band, but the story is IMHO deliberately written to be as misleading as possible.
Comments
1. Russia had enormous foreign reserves ahead of the invasion, this has enabled them to continue to buy many of the goods they need from abroad, despite the collapse of some of their energy sales.
2. China and India are actively helping Russia sanctions-bust
3. A lot of the issues will take time to have an effect. In particular, the departure of foreign oil services companies will have a long-term negative impact on hydrocarbon production... But it takes time to see this.
It is also quite fucked up in places, and it also contains sights like the Ngorongoro Crater at dawn
Enormous foreign reserves? Much of them were frozen. What they do have won't last long as Deripaska warned. Perhaps they will start selling their national assets to China.
And you can have such wild adventures there, for not much money. Just gotta get there
Zambia!
The most dangerous bits are the roads and small planes, otherwise pretty safe outside the cities at night. Safaris are great, but it is possible to get sucked into a tourist ghetto thing. The cities are rarely beautiful, but have a real cultural vibrancy that is neglected here, with images of Africa flitting between stereotypes of desolation and poverty and safari in primordial landscapes.
In interest of full disclosure, I voted to approve the measure; returned my ballot yesterday.
These are the people that took me to Dallol, the Danakil, Erta Ale
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attraction_Review-g2193229-d2389833-Reviews-Danakil_Depression-Afar_Region.html
£290 a head for three days you will never ever forget. I see they’ve got 5 star reviews from tourists this last week. So people are going, and having fun, and not dying. Add that to a £600 return ticket London Abbie and you’ve paid £900 for the experience of a lifetime and photos to die for…
And that’s just your first few days. Another £500 will be ample to take you to some of Ethiopia’s wild parks or green mountains or buried churches
£1500 a head for a priceless world class holiday in some of the most dramatic scenery/culture in the world
For BlanchLivermore, supposedly the longest non-backtracking walk on the planet...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometry
(Very roughly...)
https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/1650899579234140168?s=46&t=bneQ7jbmSyPWBrSchhqwTw
I have a friend who's very senior at Disney, I hope he survives this.
Around the world in 80 beers
I only caught it in an obscure podcast.
https://www.investigate-europe.eu/en/2022/russias-multi-million-euro-nuclear-exports-untouched-by-eu-sanctions/
IF it's British TV, chances that US Public Broadcasting System will someday broadcast it being north of 99.46%
Ninety-nine bottles of beer!
Walk a'hundred-n'fifty miles to the next bar!
Ninety-nine bottles of beer in the world!
(140.5 miles per day over 99 days avg from Cape to Mag; but recommend making walk the Other way.)
(Apologies to Malc, Fitalass and other PB Scots for this ugly outburst of anti-Caledonianism.)
https://blog.marketenginuity.com/who-watches-pbs-a-breakdown-of-demographics#:~:text=According to PBS Foundation data,stations in a given month.
Does anyone know what an "audio escape room" is? Someone just mentioned it on a Tom Scott YouTube video.
What an appalling story this is.
Generally dreadful front pages for the Gov't today.
To give employment to the artisan."
I note that the bit where Home Office has put further removals on review pending a review is not included, nor is the fact they were evacuated from Kabul to the UK as a gesture of goodwill with an understanding they would return to Nepal.
Nepal is not an unsafe country. It might have been on the red list for Coronovirus at the time, but that does not make it dangerous. It can be subject to political protests and is a poor country but that does not make it dangerous. Many said they "believed" their lives to be in danger, but we don't know if they actually were - not if they changed their story when it became clear they would be returned because they wanted to move here and thought working for the British would be a way to achieve that. It also says that many have since "made their way back" - the implication here is either another flight or, far more likely, people smugglers and boats. And it also says "some of them" were doing identical work to Afghanistan's, who were granted indefinite leave to remain, and the implication is therefore that not all of them were - we don't know in what capacity they worked at the embassy, either internally or externally, or for how long, nor the risk that posed.
There is far more to this story than meets the eye, and I suspect it's complex and nuanced.
The UK has a strong record of generosity when it comes to Nepal, including the resettlement of the Gurkas and their families, and a close partnership with the Nepalese government. Yes, the Home Office may have screwed up with some individual cases within this mix but I suspect the truth is far more complicated than the Left-wing Daily Mail implies.
We can't allow ourselves to get to a position where working for us in any capacity, anywhere in the world, for any length of time essentially automatically qualifies you for resettlement: it needs to be based on risk, type of service, length of service and the merits of the individual case. Just as any other immigration qualification would require.
I can fully believe the Home Office acted incompetently in a few of these cases, but do I believe they were being immoral and unethical on all of these overall?
No.
He trolls, gets a bite, flips it round and then doubles-down.
Entertaining for him, no doubt - and, to be fair, he's rather good at it too - but that doesn't mean we should take what he says at face value.
I suspect it's nuanced.
Ian Blackford claims he was told on April 7 that new accountants were in place, but that has been disputed by Stephen Flynn, who said no definitive assurance was given.
The row between the two men threatened to overshadow Humza Yousaf’s first visit to the Westminster group since replacing Nicola Sturgeon.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23480496.snp-westminster-group-war-blackford-flynn-clash/
Use of antibiotics in farming ‘endangering human immune system’
Study suggests antimicrobial used to promote livestock growth breeds bacteria more resistant to our natural defences
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/apr/25/use-of-antibiotics-in-farming-endangering-human-immune-system
The bolded bit at the end was new to me. Is it a Brexit benefit ?
...MacLean and colleagues are not calling for the development of such drugs to be put on hold, but say extremely careful risk assessments of the likelihood of resistance emerging and the potential consequences are required. “For AMPs, there are potentially very serious negative consequences,” he said.
Dr Jessica Blair, of the University of Birmingham, who was not involved in the study, said: “Antimicrobial peptides, including colistin, have been heralded as a potential part of the solution to the rise of multidrug-resistant infections. This study, however, suggests that resistance to these antimicrobials may have unintended consequences on the ability of pathogens to cause infection and survive within the host.”
Dr George Tegos, of Mohawk Valley Health System in New York, said that broad conclusions about the potential risks of AMPs could not be drawn from a single study, but added that the findings “raise concerns that are reasonable and make sense”.
Cóilín Nunan, an adviser to the Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics, who was not involved in the study, said: “This new study shows that colistin resistance is probably even more dangerous than previously thought … It is also remarkable that the British government is still opposed to banning preventative mass medication of intensively farmed animals with antibiotics, even though the EU banned such use over a year ago.”
Sure, it shouldn't mean an automatic visa, indeed redeployment to another embassy on a similar contract would seem reasonable. Odd though that these people were deported despite having six month visas.
hsj.co.uk/finance-and-ef…
https://twitter.com/HMAnderson39/status/1650851868170686465?t=LSye9uHkd5zog2aUdw7p9A&s=19
Antibiotics don't seem to be shifting it.
There were two problems at Stafford: it was being terribly run, and there were attempts to cover-up the failures. One was a local issue; the other national.
(For non-regular readers; a member of my family was mistreated at Stafford hospital by callous staff.)
The important thing back in 2021 was to get everyone out - fast - and this might have been one of several mechanisms to achieve that.
I totally get that we could and arguably should have made different choices but the argument that anyone who works for us anywhere in the world is entitled to come and live here (presumably with their families) if things go sideways is surely irrational. If we apply that criteria we will simply stop employing such people.
There is a stronger case to be made for Afghans who worked for us on the basis that they cannot go home but people from a third country who can? I am not seeing it as a principle although there are always hard cases when you look at the individuals.
He got problems with permission to walk through Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Bushby
In my case most recently a friend broke his neck and the nurses refused to feed/water him as they were in a hissy fit. His daughter was there at the time and promptly burst into tears.
I needed to explain to the family that very, very often the only way you get half-decent treatment from the NHS is to threaten them (PALS, ICB, police, whatever).
Sad but true. If you stand out amongst the huge numbers they treat as someone they must actually take proper care of then you are in with a chance. This of course is often achieved via charm and being polite, and following orders but this is by no means assured.
If true, Case is acting quite improperly. As usual.
Civil service boss attempts to delay Sue Gray’s start as Labour chief of staff
Exclusive: Simon Case pressuring watchdog to block Gray from taking up job until after next election
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/25/civil-service-boss-attempts-to-delay-sue-grays-start-as-labour-chief-of-staff
There's a reasonable argument about how long Gray should be forced to stay on gardening leave. It's absolutely not Case's job to decide that.
The first was due to Mid Staffs and Burnham’s blundering attempts to deal with it.
The second was due to Janos Toth’s literally insane decision to campaign on ‘Save the NHS,’ which was an absolute gift to his opponents and cost him a seat that before the election, national swing or no, looked an easy gain.
You're the lawyer, not me, but on the facts as presented it looks as if the law's been broken by the government just to show they can. Which should worry us all.
It's all of a price with Braverman's utter contempt for the law, for which frankly I think she should be disbarred (not that she will be) but it obviously goes wider than her.
If that was the deal when they got on the plane I really fail to understand how they would have been given visas.
I should make it clear I have no time for Braverman or various aspects of the government's asylum policy, specifically this Rwanda nonsense, but this seems to me to be no more than clickbait. Note the use of the word "secretly" to make it sound more sinister, for example. Who, exactly, were they supposed to tell?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M0WiWYIRSM
or your podcast platform of choice.
Were they revoked? Was proper notice given? Were the people affected given the opportunity to apply for asylum?
As it happens, this does demonstrate we're not getting the full facts, but at the moment in the absence of further info it looks extremely bad. As in, should see a number of people at least fired.
Which would be very convenient for the Bravermans in government.
Swap things round. Put Gray in charge of the civil service and send Case to work for Labour.
We get a good head of the Civil Service, lose a pretty useless one, remove an individual who thinks laws don't apply to him and from your point of view ot has the further upside the useless twat would be working for Labour.
The situation is totally unprecedented, someone moving a very senior position in the permanent CS, straight to the LotO office. There would be huge potential issues of confidentiality and access to documents.
IIRC the rule for a minister taking up certain roles in the private sector is two years, that’s probably the closest alternative they can use.
"The Gates of Hell" in Turkmenistan is a 230 feet wide hole that's been burning since 1971 after a Soviet drilling accident.
https://twitter.com/fasc1nate/status/1651011113260032000
And is this leading to a catastrophic crash of faith in Sunak’s government?
So many experienced Tory MPs started shaking their heads and muttering the moment Sunak and Braverman launched this bold “stop the boats” promises. Not because these MPs are soft on crossings soft on the causes of crossings, but because they are rightly wary and weary of front bench OVER-PROMISING.
the language the Conservative Party always used to describe those coming across the channel to surrender to border staff, has been asylum is not immigration. Sunak and Bravermans policy changed this, completely changed it in the minds of voters in the promises they have made. Those on the boats now all thought of as illegals, and processed as illegals is what voters think will happen from the language and rhetoric
The problem there is so obvious. Processing has been giving out 70% 80% asylum to stay in UK to many groups of them. Increasing processing speed can now quickly turn out results completely at odds with the government’s new rhetoric, the promises of change of policy to actually sorting the whole problem, is now in voters minds. Sunak promised to deliver.
Asylum is not immigration. And there is no fix to this, this side of the next election. The Tories should have stuck to pushing that to voters, not made the stupid mistake Sunak and Braverman did a couple of months ago. This mistake appears irrecoverable now this side of the general election, despite Sunak already trying to recover the mistake and row back (no pun intended, but it was the big take out from his ConHome interview) on what he promised voters.
In other words, the new asylum policy, what some still call a big win, it’s already unravelling into a mess
https://conservativehome.com/2023/04/20/enver-solomon-sunak-wont-stop-the-boats-i-know-it-you-know-it-so-we-need-less-harsh-more-compassionate-alternative/
If anyone thinks the Tories and Sunak ratings will continue to make steady but certain progress from here to election day, without sharp falls from the betrayal of Sunak over promising, the fall in trust in him, think again.
The voter suppression project would be condemned were such a stunt pulled by any other party. Sunak appears to be the smiling face reassuring us that what operates behind really can't be that bad, which is why we arrive at Ghurka allies being thrown to the wolves.
I listened to one and thought it dreadful. They couldn't stop violently agreeing with each other or if not agreeing then Rory accepting what a fantastic point AC had just made. It reminded me of the Spitting Image sketch with David Steel and David Owen. Rory should be more of a Tory (for the podcast to work).
Alistair Campbell and Dominic Cumming (or Nigel Farage), say. Now that is a podcast I would listen to.
Apparently we can only be free as a nation if we are imprisoned by blind prejudice against anyone who doesn't agree with whatever it is we're dog-whistling this week.
That would be entirely in character for the Home Office and indeed the current civil service.
But having been given them in error, procedures to revoke them should still apply. Were they applied here?
I'm sure there are examples, but a quick google tend to turn up stories about dishonest articles by the Mail, and stuff like this.
Statistics watchdog rebukes Sunak over inaccurate asylum backlog figures
Head of UK Statistics Authority says outstanding cases had risen, not halved as PM had claimed
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/05/statistics-watchdog-rebukes-rishi-sunak-inaccurate-asylum-backlog-figures
Huge hole...largest carpet...
I see a solution here.
(Which would not be sensible.)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/10/german-punk-band-humiliated-after-being-refused-uk-entry-due-to-post-brexit-rules
You have to read the story really, *really* carefully, to understand that they turned up at the border with no immigration paperwork at all, when they were arriving for a series of paid concerts at licenced venues.
We can all argue about what immigration paperwork *should* be required of a touring band, but the story is IMHO deliberately written to be as misleading as possible.