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.
I hate to disagree with such an established poster but as the manager for the successful Cannock Chase campaign in 2010, I can categorically state that the Mid Staffs debacle was only a minor factor in that campaign. This was mainly due to secondary healthcare being split between Stafford and Wolverhampton. A much bigger healthcare issue were the plans to close/significantly downgrade Cannock Hospital which, although part of Mid Staffs, stayed mainly clear of the controversy there.
It could be argued that the pivotal moment in the 2010 campaign came when the Labour candidate decided to stand again for her County Council seat in the 2009 elections. If I recall, she went from 1st place to 5th and never really recovered.
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.
If you read the story even more carefully, they did have paperwork but for a different scheme: PPE rather than COS. (Is PPE the most overloaded acronym?)
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.
If you read the story even more carefully, they did have paperwork but for a different scheme: PPE rather than COS. (Is PPE the most overloaded acronym?)
From the article: “Smith, who has been in touch with the band, said they did not have the COS certificates. 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.
“A COS is an alternative route into the UK, regarded as “a safer bet” but with more onerous paperwork, said Smith. It involves a promoter sponsoring the band and checking their eligibility and vouching for them during their stay in the UK, from a few days to up to 90 days.”
It says what visa exemption they intended to use, and what the requirements are for that visa exemption, but it doesn’t say that the band turned up at the border with those requirements met.
Because if they’re turned up at the border with the requirements met, they wouldn’t have been turned away, would they?
My best guess would be that the band’s management just saw ‘free’, but missed the requirements for a formal invite letter from the venue, proof of funds, and a return ticket.
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.
I hate to disagree with such an established poster but as the manager for the successful Cannock Chase campaign in 2010, I can categorically state that the Mid Staffs debacle was only a minor factor in that campaign. This was mainly due to secondary healthcare being split between Stafford and Wolverhampton. A much bigger healthcare issue were the plans to close/significantly downgrade Cannock Hospital which, although part of Mid Staffs, stayed mainly clear of the controversy there.
It could be argued that the pivotal moment in the 2010 campaign came when the Labour candidate decided to stand again for her County Council seat in the 2009 elections. If I recall, she went from 1st place to 5th and never really recovered.
To be fair, I didn't live here in 2010. I was told there was a lot of anger about it, and I've repeated what I was told. You say different and I'm willing to take your word for it.
I stand by what I said about 2015. That was a definite shoot yourself in both feet and I was staggered by how stupid an idea it was.
There is a certain irony about the issues around Cannock Hospital which has of course now been downgraded...
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.
If you read the story even more carefully, they did have paperwork but for a different scheme: PPE rather than COS. (Is PPE the most overloaded acronym?)
From the article: “Smith, who has been in touch with the band, said they did not have the COS certificates. 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.
“A COS is an alternative route into the UK, regarded as “a safer bet” but with more onerous paperwork, said Smith. It involves a promoter sponsoring the band and checking their eligibility and vouching for them during their stay in the UK, from a few days to up to 90 days.”
It says what visa they intended to use, and what the requirements are for that visa, but it doesn’t say that the band turned up at the border with those requirements met.
Because if they’re turned up at the border with the requirements met, they wouldn’t have been turned away, would they?
That strikes me as an optimistic view of the U.K. border force.
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.
Was it misleading - or just a different take to that from your favoured media ? Again, it's a story the government would prefer doesn't get much airing; they'd rather we didn't argue about the paperwork introduced by them post Brexit at all.
If we are to believe the defenders here, the arrangement with the 100s of Nepali guards who just happened to all just turn up in Kabul and be available for diplomatic protection was a very casualised arrangement that happened almost by accident, like getting a particular Uber driver. This was not at all an arrangement with a UK allied PMC where near Gurkha types were actively imported into a war zone to protection for UK interests.
I guess all those girls turned up.on Epstein island entirely by happenstance as well?
Again, it's a story the government would prefer doesn't get much airing; they'd rather we didn't argue about the paperwork introduced by them post Brexit at all.
Again, it's a story the government would prefer doesn't get much airing; they'd rather we didn't argue about the paperwork introduced by them post Brexit at all.
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.
Was it misleading - or just a different take to that from your favoured media ? Again, it's a story the government would prefer doesn't get much airing; they'd rather we didn't argue about the paperwork introduced by them post Brexit at all.
I think it started from the conclusion “Band turned away, because Brexit Bad”, and then fitted some of the facts in afterwards, omitting those that didn’t suit.
We all have our biases, of course we do, and whether or not the paperwork is appropriate is a different argument, but “band turned away because they didn’t have the paperwork required” isn’t really much of a story.
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.
I hate to disagree with such an established poster but as the manager for the successful Cannock Chase campaign in 2010, I can categorically state that the Mid Staffs debacle was only a minor factor in that campaign. This was mainly due to secondary healthcare being split between Stafford and Wolverhampton. A much bigger healthcare issue were the plans to close/significantly downgrade Cannock Hospital which, although part of Mid Staffs, stayed mainly clear of the controversy there.
It could be argued that the pivotal moment in the 2010 campaign came when the Labour candidate decided to stand again for her County Council seat in the 2009 elections. If I recall, she went from 1st place to 5th and never really recovered.
To be fair, I didn't live here in 2010. I was told there was a lot of anger about it, and I've repeated what I was told. You say different and I'm willing to take your word for it.
I stand by what I said about 2015. That was a definite shoot yourself in both feet and I was staggered by how stupid an idea it was.
There is a certain irony about the issues around Cannock Hospital which has of course now been downgraded...
I had moved away by the 2015 campaign but agree with your comment. I know there was much delight in Conservative circles when Labour selected their 2015 candidate and the fact that he shot himself in both feet was very much in character.
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.
I've read the article and can't find the bit where it said they turned up with no paperwork at all.
The band themselves said:
"We are so sorry...our preparations concerning every detail of the tour were extremely good we thought. All the custom shit together and had our letters of invitation at hand. "
and:
"Hey Guys, we're back from Calais 🙁 actually we thought we could start our Trigger Cut Tour yesterday, but the UK Border Police taught us otherwise. We had all the papers we needed but the Border Police wanted them have a so-called certificate of sponsorship from all 7 clubs. This certificate or number was unknown even to the organizers. Nobody knew about it!!"
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.
Was it misleading - or just a different take to that from your favoured media ? Again, it's a story the government would prefer doesn't get much airing; they'd rather we didn't argue about the paperwork introduced by them post Brexit at all.
I think it started from the conclusion “Band turned away, because Brexit Bad”, and then fitted some of the facts in afterwards, omitting those that didn’t suit.
We all have our biases, of course we do, and whether or not the paperwork is appropriate is a different argument, but “band turned away because they didn’t have the paperwork required” isn’t really much of a story.
Apart from accurately describing what happened what is your issue with this article you think is an example of a newspaper with 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."?
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.
I hate to disagree with such an established poster but as the manager for the successful Cannock Chase campaign in 2010, I can categorically state that the Mid Staffs debacle was only a minor factor in that campaign. This was mainly due to secondary healthcare being split between Stafford and Wolverhampton. A much bigger healthcare issue were the plans to close/significantly downgrade Cannock Hospital which, although part of Mid Staffs, stayed mainly clear of the controversy there.
It could be argued that the pivotal moment in the 2010 campaign came when the Labour candidate decided to stand again for her County Council seat in the 2009 elections. If I recall, she went from 1st place to 5th and never really recovered.
Congratulations on your successful campaign in 2010! Please post more and lurk less, voices of actual campaigners are always welcome!
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.
Was it misleading - or just a different take to that from your favoured media ? Again, it's a story the government would prefer doesn't get much airing; they'd rather we didn't argue about the paperwork introduced by them post Brexit at all.
I think it started from the conclusion “Band turned away, because Brexit Bad”, and then fitted some of the facts in afterwards, omitting those that didn’t suit.
We all have our biases, of course we do, and whether or not the paperwork is appropriate is a different argument, but “band turned away because they didn’t have the paperwork required” isn’t really much of a story.
Point is that you object to these stories being reported by the Guardian - but they go largely unreported by the Telegraph, Mail, Express etc.
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.
I hate to disagree with such an established poster but as the manager for the successful Cannock Chase campaign in 2010, I can categorically state that the Mid Staffs debacle was only a minor factor in that campaign. This was mainly due to secondary healthcare being split between Stafford and Wolverhampton. A much bigger healthcare issue were the plans to close/significantly downgrade Cannock Hospital which, although part of Mid Staffs, stayed mainly clear of the controversy there.
It could be argued that the pivotal moment in the 2010 campaign came when the Labour candidate decided to stand again for her County Council seat in the 2009 elections. If I recall, she went from 1st place to 5th and never really recovered.
So you helped Aiden Burley get elected?
Suddenly I don’t feel so bad in helping Andrea Jenkyns get elected 😁
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.
If you read the story even more carefully, they did have paperwork but for a different scheme: PPE rather than COS. (Is PPE the most overloaded acronym?)
From the article: “Smith, who has been in touch with the band, said they did not have the COS certificates. 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.
“A COS is an alternative route into the UK, regarded as “a safer bet” but with more onerous paperwork, said Smith. It involves a promoter sponsoring the band and checking their eligibility and vouching for them during their stay in the UK, from a few days to up to 90 days.”
It says what visa exemption they intended to use, and what the requirements are for that visa exemption, but it doesn’t say that the band turned up at the border with those requirements met.
Because if they’re turned up at the border with the requirements met, they wouldn’t have been turned away, would they?
My best guess would be that the band’s management just saw ‘free’, but missed the requirements for a formal invite letter from the venue, proof of funds, and a return ticket.
According to the band's own account, they did have (the wrong) paperwork. Note they also claim German authorities were unaware of British rules.
Dear friends, bad news for all people who await Trigger Cut in the United Kingdom. Today we got refused at the UK border for weird reasons. We would have needed a special certificate of sponsorship but noone knew before, not even the venues, promoters or the german customs authority. Brexit bureaucracye??? a post Brexit nightmare.😢😢😢 We are so sorry...our preparations concerning every detail of the tour were extremely good we thought. All the custom shit together and had our letters of invitation at hand. Last but not least the whole procedure at UK border was humuliating and sad. We are so so sorry but we cannot make the UK Tour happen. Brexit finally killed the cultural interaction between all of us. It was a sad experience. Take care. Hopefully see you soon. Trigger Cut https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=987352065561832&id=100028611441026
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.
Was it misleading - or just a different take to that from your favoured media ? Again, it's a story the government would prefer doesn't get much airing; they'd rather we didn't argue about the paperwork introduced by them post Brexit at all.
I think it started from the conclusion “Band turned away, because Brexit Bad”, and then fitted some of the facts in afterwards, omitting those that didn’t suit.
We all have our biases, of course we do, and whether or not the paperwork is appropriate is a different argument, but “band turned away because they didn’t have the paperwork required” isn’t really much of a 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.
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.
Was it misleading - or just a different take to that from your favoured media ? Again, it's a story the government would prefer doesn't get much airing; they'd rather we didn't argue about the paperwork introduced by them post Brexit at all.
I think it started from the conclusion “Band turned away, because Brexit Bad”, and then fitted some of the facts in afterwards, omitting those that didn’t suit.
We all have our biases, of course we do, and whether or not the paperwork is appropriate is a different argument, but “band turned away because they didn’t have the paperwork required” isn’t really much of a 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.
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.
Was it misleading - or just a different take to that from your favoured media ? Again, it's a story the government would prefer doesn't get much airing; they'd rather we didn't argue about the paperwork introduced by them post Brexit at all.
I think it started from the conclusion “Band turned away, because Brexit Bad”, and then fitted some of the facts in afterwards, omitting those that didn’t suit.
We all have our biases, of course we do, and whether or not the paperwork is appropriate is a different argument, but “band turned away because they didn’t have the paperwork required” isn’t really much of a 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.
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.
Was it misleading - or just a different take to that from your favoured media ? Again, it's a story the government would prefer doesn't get much airing; they'd rather we didn't argue about the paperwork introduced by them post Brexit at all.
I think it started from the conclusion “Band turned away, because Brexit Bad”, and then fitted some of the facts in afterwards, omitting those that didn’t suit.
We all have our biases, of course we do, and whether or not the paperwork is appropriate is a different argument, but “band turned away because they didn’t have the paperwork required” isn’t really much of a story.
There's a big difference between a "totally misleading" story, and a story that you think "isn't really much of a story" - which all news outlets are surely full of. What important facts did the Guardian omit in the Trigger Cut story?
Watched the Diplomat yesterday on Netflix. The first few episodes don't grab me, my wife, who has served in the Swiss diplomatic service in the Swiss Embassy for the UK was extremely unimpressed. I honestly thought her eyes would roll out of her head at one point. I did suggest that the UK/US relationship would probably have a different structure to the UK/Swiss one but her points were more that ambassadors to London are more likely to be hosting garden parties than contributing to UK foreign policy. It would be the State department in the US and foreign office here that would be in the room.
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.
If you read the story even more carefully, they did have paperwork but for a different scheme: PPE rather than COS. (Is PPE the most overloaded acronym?)
From the article: “Smith, who has been in touch with the band, said they did not have the COS certificates. 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.
“A COS is an alternative route into the UK, regarded as “a safer bet” but with more onerous paperwork, said Smith. It involves a promoter sponsoring the band and checking their eligibility and vouching for them during their stay in the UK, from a few days to up to 90 days.”
It says what visa exemption they intended to use, and what the requirements are for that visa exemption, but it doesn’t say that the band turned up at the border with those requirements met.
Because if they’re turned up at the border with the requirements met, they wouldn’t have been turned away, would they?
My best guess would be that the band’s management just saw ‘free’, but missed the requirements for a formal invite letter from the venue, proof of funds, and a return ticket.
According to the band's own account, they did have (the wrong) paperwork. Note they also claim German authorities were unaware of British rules.
Dear friends, bad news for all people who await Trigger Cut in the United Kingdom. Today we got refused at the UK border for weird reasons. We would have needed a special certificate of sponsorship but noone knew before, not even the venues, promoters or the german customs authority. Brexit bureaucracye??? a post Brexit nightmare.😢😢😢 We are so sorry...our preparations concerning every detail of the tour were extremely good we thought. All the custom shit together and had our letters of invitation at hand. Last but not least the whole procedure at UK border was humuliating and sad. We are so so sorry but we cannot make the UK Tour happen. Brexit finally killed the cultural interaction between all of us. It was a sad experience. Take care. Hopefully see you soon. Trigger Cut https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=987352065561832&id=100028611441026
ETA so the Guardian is exonerated.
The bit in bold, doesn’t appear in the Guardian article at all. Which is the actual reason they were not admitted. It was removed from the band’s quote which otherwise did appear in the article.
As it happens, my personal view is that stuff like touring bands and sports teams with equipment are a real pain in the arse. It should be top of the list for the next UK/EU summit. It’s much worse for smaller bands and orchestras, who don’t have professional management and rely on volunteers.
Watched the Diplomat yesterday on Netflix. The first few episodes don't grab me, my wife, who has served in the Swiss diplomatic service in the Swiss Embassy for the UK was extremely unimpressed.
It's a drama, not a documentary.
Is "Hamlet" crap because it doesn't accurately portray political governance in medieval Denmark?
Watched the Diplomat yesterday on Netflix. The first few episodes don't grab me, my wife, who has served in the Swiss diplomatic service in the Swiss Embassy for the UK was extremely unimpressed. I honestly thought her eyes would roll out of her head at one point. I did suggest that the UK/US relationship would probably have a different structure to the UK/Swiss one but her points were more that ambassadors to London are more likely to be hosting garden parties than contributing to UK foreign policy. It would be the State department in the US and foreign office here that would be in the room.
NO SPOILERS PLEASE
But.
Having watched the first few episodes isn't the point that they are grooming her for (at least) VP so are intentionally involving her over and above what would usually be the case for an ambassador.
IIRC when this arson attack happened, a number of people on here were of the opinion that we should wait & see if it was categorised as a hate crime & that doing so before officialdom did was premature so I’m just dropping this link to let you all know that, yes, it was a hate crime according to the MET:
Meanwhile the steady drumbeat of anti trans culture war articles in the press continue, so I sadly expect we’ll see more of this kind of stochastic terrorism in the next year or so at least, with those responsible for spreading hate absolutely refusing to recognise any connection between their words & these actions. Isn’t deniability great?
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.
If you read the story even more carefully, they did have paperwork but for a different scheme: PPE rather than COS. (Is PPE the most overloaded acronym?)
From the article: “Smith, who has been in touch with the band, said they did not have the COS certificates. 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.
“A COS is an alternative route into the UK, regarded as “a safer bet” but with more onerous paperwork, said Smith. It involves a promoter sponsoring the band and checking their eligibility and vouching for them during their stay in the UK, from a few days to up to 90 days.”
It says what visa exemption they intended to use, and what the requirements are for that visa exemption, but it doesn’t say that the band turned up at the border with those requirements met.
Because if they’re turned up at the border with the requirements met, they wouldn’t have been turned away, would they?
My best guess would be that the band’s management just saw ‘free’, but missed the requirements for a formal invite letter from the venue, proof of funds, and a return ticket.
According to the band's own account, they did have (the wrong) paperwork. Note they also claim German authorities were unaware of British rules.
Dear friends, bad news for all people who await Trigger Cut in the United Kingdom. Today we got refused at the UK border for weird reasons. We would have needed a special certificate of sponsorship but noone knew before, not even the venues, promoters or the german customs authority. Brexit bureaucracye??? a post Brexit nightmare.😢😢😢 We are so sorry...our preparations concerning every detail of the tour were extremely good we thought. All the custom shit together and had our letters of invitation at hand. Last but not least the whole procedure at UK border was humuliating and sad. We are so so sorry but we cannot make the UK Tour happen. Brexit finally killed the cultural interaction between all of us. It was a sad experience. Take care. Hopefully see you soon. Trigger Cut https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=987352065561832&id=100028611441026
ETA so the Guardian is exonerated.
The bit in bold, doesn’t appear in the Guardian article at all. Which is the actual reason they were not admitted. It was removed from the band’s quote which otherwise did appear in the article.
As it happens, my personal view is that stuff like touring bands and sports teams with equipment are a real pain in the arse. It should be top of the list for the next UK/EU summit. It’s much worse for smaller bands and orchestras, who don’t have professional management and rely on volunteers.
But this is exactly what the Guardian article says - they were hoping to enter under the “permitted paid engagement” exemption which doesn't require Certificates of Sponsorship, and at the border they were told they need COSs, which obviously nobody had told them about. Still totally mystified as to what you think is even slightly misleading in this article.
Last night the MP for Ross, Skye and Lochaber insisted it was neither his responsibility as [SNP] leader to tell his successor, nor the Commons' authorities, that the party's auditors had quit.
He said the question was "insulting" when asked why he had not told the Commons finance staff. He said it would have been up to Peter Grant, the party's treasurer at Westminster to do so.
"I think your question is awful and let's leave it at that," he said….
"I didn't pass that information on because that wouldn't be my responsibility to do so. There is a leadership team and they have dedicated responsibility. Your question is insulting quite frankly. How dare you. How dare you."
Watched the Diplomat yesterday on Netflix. The first few episodes don't grab me, my wife, who has served in the Swiss diplomatic service in the Swiss Embassy for the UK was extremely unimpressed. I honestly thought her eyes would roll out of her head at one point. I did suggest that the UK/US relationship would probably have a different structure to the UK/Swiss one but her points were more that ambassadors to London are more likely to be hosting garden parties than contributing to UK foreign policy. It would be the State department in the US and foreign office here that would be in the room.
Having watched the first two episodes, it feels like an attempt to recreate the drama of the West Wing in a modern context, combined with all the usual Netflix standard script requirements regarding ethnicity of the actors, having at least one muscular six pack on display at some point, etc etc. When you can tick off those management mandated requirements as they pop up on screen, it does kind of kill the immersion.
Read as a completely artificial stage play about a marriage between a devious political operator and his career minded wife, it was quite fun, even if the actual events depicted are completely ludicrous & disconnected from the reality of international relations between UK/US & the role of the diplomat themselves.
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.
If you read the story even more carefully, they did have paperwork but for a different scheme: PPE rather than COS. (Is PPE the most overloaded acronym?)
From the article: “Smith, who has been in touch with the band, said they did not have the COS certificates. 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.
“A COS is an alternative route into the UK, regarded as “a safer bet” but with more onerous paperwork, said Smith. It involves a promoter sponsoring the band and checking their eligibility and vouching for them during their stay in the UK, from a few days to up to 90 days.”
It says what visa exemption they intended to use, and what the requirements are for that visa exemption, but it doesn’t say that the band turned up at the border with those requirements met.
Because if they’re turned up at the border with the requirements met, they wouldn’t have been turned away, would they?
My best guess would be that the band’s management just saw ‘free’, but missed the requirements for a formal invite letter from the venue, proof of funds, and a return ticket.
According to the band's own account, they did have (the wrong) paperwork. Note they also claim German authorities were unaware of British rules.
Dear friends, bad news for all people who await Trigger Cut in the United Kingdom. Today we got refused at the UK border for weird reasons. We would have needed a special certificate of sponsorship but noone knew before, not even the venues, promoters or the german customs authority. Brexit bureaucracye??? a post Brexit nightmare.😢😢😢 We are so sorry...our preparations concerning every detail of the tour were extremely good we thought. All the custom shit together and had our letters of invitation at hand. Last but not least the whole procedure at UK border was humuliating and sad. We are so so sorry but we cannot make the UK Tour happen. Brexit finally killed the cultural interaction between all of us. It was a sad experience. Take care. Hopefully see you soon. Trigger Cut https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=987352065561832&id=100028611441026
ETA so the Guardian is exonerated.
The bit in bold, doesn’t appear in the Guardian article at all. Which is the actual reason they were not admitted. It was removed from the band’s quote which otherwise did appear in the article.
As it happens, my personal view is that stuff like touring bands and sports teams with equipment are a real pain in the arse. It should be top of the list for the next UK/EU summit. It’s much worse for smaller bands and orchestras, who don’t have professional management and rely on volunteers.
But it was explained at length in the Guardian article. The band was relying on the PPE scheme rather than COS (certificates of sponsorship) which is termed "the safer bet".
I'd agree simpler arrangements should be put in place for these sorts of cultural events, and also school trips.
Watched the Diplomat yesterday on Netflix. The first few episodes don't grab me, my wife, who has served in the Swiss diplomatic service in the Swiss Embassy for the UK was extremely unimpressed.
It's a drama, not a documentary.
Is "Hamlet" crap because it doesn't accurately portray political governance in medieval Denmark?
I think we can only fully judge the absurdity of the plotting after the second series has come out, given what's left unresolved. Understanding that it's a fictional universe doesn't preclude noting the failures of logic in the drama.
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.
If you read the story even more carefully, they did have paperwork but for a different scheme: PPE rather than COS. (Is PPE the most overloaded acronym?)
From the article: “Smith, who has been in touch with the band, said they did not have the COS certificates. 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.
“A COS is an alternative route into the UK, regarded as “a safer bet” but with more onerous paperwork, said Smith. It involves a promoter sponsoring the band and checking their eligibility and vouching for them during their stay in the UK, from a few days to up to 90 days.”
It says what visa exemption they intended to use, and what the requirements are for that visa exemption, but it doesn’t say that the band turned up at the border with those requirements met.
Because if they’re turned up at the border with the requirements met, they wouldn’t have been turned away, would they?
My best guess would be that the band’s management just saw ‘free’, but missed the requirements for a formal invite letter from the venue, proof of funds, and a return ticket.
According to the band's own account, they did have (the wrong) paperwork. Note they also claim German authorities were unaware of British rules.
Dear friends, bad news for all people who await Trigger Cut in the United Kingdom. Today we got refused at the UK border for weird reasons. We would have needed a special certificate of sponsorship but noone knew before, not even the venues, promoters or the german customs authority. Brexit bureaucracye??? a post Brexit nightmare.😢😢😢 We are so sorry...our preparations concerning every detail of the tour were extremely good we thought. All the custom shit together and had our letters of invitation at hand. Last but not least the whole procedure at UK border was humuliating and sad. We are so so sorry but we cannot make the UK Tour happen. Brexit finally killed the cultural interaction between all of us. It was a sad experience. Take care. Hopefully see you soon. Trigger Cut https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=987352065561832&id=100028611441026
ETA so the Guardian is exonerated.
The bit in bold, doesn’t appear in the Guardian article at all. Which is the actual reason they were not admitted. It was removed from the band’s quote which otherwise did appear in the article.
As it happens, my personal view is that stuff like touring bands and sports teams with equipment are a real pain in the arse. It should be top of the list for the next UK/EU summit. It’s much worse for smaller bands and orchestras, who don’t have professional management and rely on volunteers.
But this is exactly what the Guardian article says - they were hoping to enter under the “permitted paid engagement” exemption which doesn't require Certificates of Sponsorship, and at the border they were told they need COSs, which obviously nobody had told them about. Still totally mystified as to what you think is even slightly misleading in this article.
Quibbling over details in a particular story is a bit beside the point.
As I noted upthread, these stories go largely unreported in the right of centre media. I'd be more impressed by the quibbling if anyone else were doing it better.
Watched the Diplomat yesterday on Netflix. The first few episodes don't grab me, my wife, who has served in the Swiss diplomatic service in the Swiss Embassy for the UK was extremely unimpressed. I honestly thought her eyes would roll out of her head at one point. I did suggest that the UK/US relationship would probably have a different structure to the UK/Swiss one but her points were more that ambassadors to London are more likely to be hosting garden parties than contributing to UK foreign policy. It would be the State department in the US and foreign office here that would be in the room.
NO SPOILERS PLEASE
But.
Having watched the first few episodes isn't the point that they are grooming her for (at least) VP so are intentionally involving her over and above what would usually be the case for an ambassador.
Plus where is the Chevening they are using?
Isn’t that the actual Foreign & Commonwealth office in London (or a very good CGI / mockup thereof)? The staircase matches.
The house being used as a stand-in for Winfield is Wrotham Park apparently.
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.
If you read the story even more carefully, they did have paperwork but for a different scheme: PPE rather than COS. (Is PPE the most overloaded acronym?)
From the article: “Smith, who has been in touch with the band, said they did not have the COS certificates. 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.
“A COS is an alternative route into the UK, regarded as “a safer bet” but with more onerous paperwork, said Smith. It involves a promoter sponsoring the band and checking their eligibility and vouching for them during their stay in the UK, from a few days to up to 90 days.”
It says what visa exemption they intended to use, and what the requirements are for that visa exemption, but it doesn’t say that the band turned up at the border with those requirements met.
Because if they’re turned up at the border with the requirements met, they wouldn’t have been turned away, would they?
My best guess would be that the band’s management just saw ‘free’, but missed the requirements for a formal invite letter from the venue, proof of funds, and a return ticket.
According to the band's own account, they did have (the wrong) paperwork. Note they also claim German authorities were unaware of British rules.
Dear friends, bad news for all people who await Trigger Cut in the United Kingdom. Today we got refused at the UK border for weird reasons. We would have needed a special certificate of sponsorship but noone knew before, not even the venues, promoters or the german customs authority. Brexit bureaucracye??? a post Brexit nightmare.😢😢😢 We are so sorry...our preparations concerning every detail of the tour were extremely good we thought. All the custom shit together and had our letters of invitation at hand. Last but not least the whole procedure at UK border was humuliating and sad. We are so so sorry but we cannot make the UK Tour happen. Brexit finally killed the cultural interaction between all of us. It was a sad experience. Take care. Hopefully see you soon. Trigger Cut https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=987352065561832&id=100028611441026
ETA so the Guardian is exonerated.
The bit in bold, doesn’t appear in the Guardian article at all. Which is the actual reason they were not admitted. It was removed from the band’s quote which otherwise did appear in the article.
As it happens, my personal view is that stuff like touring bands and sports teams with equipment are a real pain in the arse. It should be top of the list for the next UK/EU summit. It’s much worse for smaller bands and orchestras, who don’t have professional management and rely on volunteers.
But this is exactly what the Guardian article says - they were hoping to enter under the “permitted paid engagement” exemption which doesn't require Certificates of Sponsorship, and at the border they were told they need COSs, which obviously nobody had told them about. Still totally mystified as to what you think is even slightly misleading in this article.
Quibbling over details in a particular story is a bit beside the point.
As I noted upthread, these stories go largely unreported in the right of centre media. I'd be more impressed by the quibbling if anyone else were doing it better.
I just think there must be better examples of the Guardian publishing "totally misleading immigration stories", because this particular story isn't misleading, and also isn't about immigration.
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.
If you read the story even more carefully, they did have paperwork but for a different scheme: PPE rather than COS. (Is PPE the most overloaded acronym?)
From the article: “Smith, who has been in touch with the band, said they did not have the COS certificates. 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.
“A COS is an alternative route into the UK, regarded as “a safer bet” but with more onerous paperwork, said Smith. It involves a promoter sponsoring the band and checking their eligibility and vouching for them during their stay in the UK, from a few days to up to 90 days.”
It says what visa exemption they intended to use, and what the requirements are for that visa exemption, but it doesn’t say that the band turned up at the border with those requirements met.
Because if they’re turned up at the border with the requirements met, they wouldn’t have been turned away, would they?
My best guess would be that the band’s management just saw ‘free’, but missed the requirements for a formal invite letter from the venue, proof of funds, and a return ticket.
Sorry but this is a terrible take, they showed up with their passports and they're clearly touring not coming here to live permanently. The requirement for the cos is a nonsense
Offtopic, a totally fascinating piece about Fox News, with alums Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and Megyn Kelly, discussing the departure of Tucker Carlson and the future of the channel
First quote of note: O’Reilly: Trump would not have been president without the Fox News channel Beck: Agreed O’Reilly: And now that’s gone. He doesn’t have that advantage for the upcoming election. That’s the big story 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.
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.
If you read the story even more carefully, they did have paperwork but for a different scheme: PPE rather than COS. (Is PPE the most overloaded acronym?)
From the article: “Smith, who has been in touch with the band, said they did not have the COS certificates. 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.
“A COS is an alternative route into the UK, regarded as “a safer bet” but with more onerous paperwork, said Smith. It involves a promoter sponsoring the band and checking their eligibility and vouching for them during their stay in the UK, from a few days to up to 90 days.”
It says what visa exemption they intended to use, and what the requirements are for that visa exemption, but it doesn’t say that the band turned up at the border with those requirements met.
Because if they’re turned up at the border with the requirements met, they wouldn’t have been turned away, would they?
My best guess would be that the band’s management just saw ‘free’, but missed the requirements for a formal invite letter from the venue, proof of funds, and a return ticket.
According to the band's own account, they did have (the wrong) paperwork. Note they also claim German authorities were unaware of British rules.
Dear friends, bad news for all people who await Trigger Cut in the United Kingdom. Today we got refused at the UK border for weird reasons. We would have needed a special certificate of sponsorship but noone knew before, not even the venues, promoters or the german customs authority. Brexit bureaucracye??? a post Brexit nightmare.😢😢😢 We are so sorry...our preparations concerning every detail of the tour were extremely good we thought. All the custom shit together and had our letters of invitation at hand. Last but not least the whole procedure at UK border was humuliating and sad. We are so so sorry but we cannot make the UK Tour happen. Brexit finally killed the cultural interaction between all of us. It was a sad experience. Take care. Hopefully see you soon. Trigger Cut https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=987352065561832&id=100028611441026
ETA so the Guardian is exonerated.
The bit in bold, doesn’t appear in the Guardian article at all. Which is the actual reason they were not admitted. It was removed from the band’s quote which otherwise did appear in the article.
You have misunderstood: They expected to enter under one scheme, which would gives 1 month entry for touring artists, but were told they could only enter under another (the three month entry that requires certidficates of sponsorship & is considerable more faff & much more expensive).
We’re not likely to get a detailed explanation, but speculation I’ve seen on Twitter from people who know more about this stuff than I do is that they were deemed ineligible for the former due to a technicality in the defintions - that visa is only available to “professional musicians” (or other artists) & if you don’t make your income primarily from your art (i.e., like many many artists you have a full or mostly full time job that pays the bills & a do music as much for the love of it as for the income) then you are not eligible for the PPE visa.
It’s this latter requirement that is not spelt out on the government website which details the visa requirements & may or may not be intentional, but is (apparently) how the rules are being interpreted by immigration officials: https://www.gov.uk/permitted-paid-engagement-visitor
As it happens, my personal view is that stuff like touring bands and sports teams with equipment are a real pain in the arse. It should be top of the list for the next UK/EU summit. It’s much worse for smaller bands and orchestras, who don’t have professional management and rely on volunteers.
The EU did offer a reciprocal scheme during the Brexit negotiations, similar to the one that existed prior to 1974, but the government flatly refused to consider it. They were incompetent muppets who were incapable of recognising a good idea if it whacked them in the face, because “Brexit good, EU bad” was the absolute rule at the time.
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.
If you read the story even more carefully, they did have paperwork but for a different scheme: PPE rather than COS. (Is PPE the most overloaded acronym?)
From the article: “Smith, who has been in touch with the band, said they did not have the COS certificates. 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.
“A COS is an alternative route into the UK, regarded as “a safer bet” but with more onerous paperwork, said Smith. It involves a promoter sponsoring the band and checking their eligibility and vouching for them during their stay in the UK, from a few days to up to 90 days.”
It says what visa exemption they intended to use, and what the requirements are for that visa exemption, but it doesn’t say that the band turned up at the border with those requirements met.
Because if they’re turned up at the border with the requirements met, they wouldn’t have been turned away, would they?
My best guess would be that the band’s management just saw ‘free’, but missed the requirements for a formal invite letter from the venue, proof of funds, and a return ticket.
Sorry but this is a terrible take, they showed up with their passports and they're clearly touring not coming here to live permanently. The requirement for the cos is a nonsense
Using judgement like that would against the entire philosophy of government. Making an ever thicker rule book that attempts to proscribe every possible outcome Is The Way.
When I pointed out to a senior civil servant that this is provably impossible - humans are non-linear - the response was entertaining. It was as if I had denied The True Faith.
Yesterday, Stephen Flynn gave a speech at the Institute for Government, demanding the devolution of more powers over energy. Asked to explain exactly what he was proposing, he identified “the ability to licence”… something which is already devolved. 🤯
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.
If you read the story even more carefully, they did have paperwork but for a different scheme: PPE rather than COS. (Is PPE the most overloaded acronym?)
From the article: “Smith, who has been in touch with the band, said they did not have the COS certificates. 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.
“A COS is an alternative route into the UK, regarded as “a safer bet” but with more onerous paperwork, said Smith. It involves a promoter sponsoring the band and checking their eligibility and vouching for them during their stay in the UK, from a few days to up to 90 days.”
It says what visa exemption they intended to use, and what the requirements are for that visa exemption, but it doesn’t say that the band turned up at the border with those requirements met.
Because if they’re turned up at the border with the requirements met, they wouldn’t have been turned away, would they?
My best guess would be that the band’s management just saw ‘free’, but missed the requirements for a formal invite letter from the venue, proof of funds, and a return ticket.
Sorry but this is a terrible take, they showed up with their passports and they're clearly touring not coming here to live permanently. The requirement for the cos is a nonsense
I agree about the COS, but the process is reciprocal. I’d be all in favour of scrapping requirements for most cultural and sporting exchanges.
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.
I hate to disagree with such an established poster but as the manager for the successful Cannock Chase campaign in 2010, I can categorically state that the Mid Staffs debacle was only a minor factor in that campaign. This was mainly due to secondary healthcare being split between Stafford and Wolverhampton. A much bigger healthcare issue were the plans to close/significantly downgrade Cannock Hospital which, although part of Mid Staffs, stayed mainly clear of the controversy there.
It could be argued that the pivotal moment in the 2010 campaign came when the Labour candidate decided to stand again for her County Council seat in the 2009 elections. If I recall, she went from 1st place to 5th and never really recovered.
So you helped Aiden Burley get elected?
Suddenly I don’t feel so bad in helping Andrea Jenkyns get elected 😁
The full story of those 'exciting' couple of weeks will probably never be told - at least not by me. Had it been told at the time, opinions of Aidan may be slightly more positive and those of the Mail on Sunday even more negative.
Offtopic, a totally fascinating piece about Fox News, with alums Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and Megyn Kelly, discussing the departure of Tucker Carlson and the future of the channel
First quote of note: O’Reilly: Trump would not have been president without the Fox News channel Beck: Agreed O’Reilly: And now that’s gone. He doesn’t have that advantage for the upcoming election. That’s the big story 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.
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.
If you read the story even more carefully, they did have paperwork but for a different scheme: PPE rather than COS. (Is PPE the most overloaded acronym?)
From the article: “Smith, who has been in touch with the band, said they did not have the COS certificates. 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.
“A COS is an alternative route into the UK, regarded as “a safer bet” but with more onerous paperwork, said Smith. It involves a promoter sponsoring the band and checking their eligibility and vouching for them during their stay in the UK, from a few days to up to 90 days.”
It says what visa exemption they intended to use, and what the requirements are for that visa exemption, but it doesn’t say that the band turned up at the border with those requirements met.
Because if they’re turned up at the border with the requirements met, they wouldn’t have been turned away, would they?
My best guess would be that the band’s management just saw ‘free’, but missed the requirements for a formal invite letter from the venue, proof of funds, and a return ticket.
Sorry but this is a terrible take, they showed up with their passports and they're clearly touring not coming here to live permanently. The requirement for the cos is a nonsense
I agree about the COS, but the process is reciprocal. I’d be all in favour of scrapping requirements for most cultural and sporting exchanges.
Watched the Diplomat yesterday on Netflix. The first few episodes don't grab me, my wife, who has served in the Swiss diplomatic service in the Swiss Embassy for the UK was extremely unimpressed.
It's a drama, not a documentary.
Is "Hamlet" crap because it doesn't accurately portray political governance in medieval Denmark?
Are drama, novels or news coverage ever convincingly accurate when dealing with anything you really know quite a lot about?
That odd feeling when national news covers stories in your local area...
Watched the Diplomat yesterday on Netflix. The first few episodes don't grab me, my wife, who has served in the Swiss diplomatic service in the Swiss Embassy for the UK was extremely unimpressed. I honestly thought her eyes would roll out of her head at one point. I did suggest that the UK/US relationship would probably have a different structure to the UK/Swiss one but her points were more that ambassadors to London are more likely to be hosting garden parties than contributing to UK foreign policy. It would be the State department in the US and foreign office here that would be in the room.
I think that point was made more than once with the London ambassadorship described as a ‘Tiffany’ posting, while tousle maned serious person Kate bucked the norm like a good maverick should.
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.
If you read the story even more carefully, they did have paperwork but for a different scheme: PPE rather than COS. (Is PPE the most overloaded acronym?)
From the article: “Smith, who has been in touch with the band, said they did not have the COS certificates. 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.
“A COS is an alternative route into the UK, regarded as “a safer bet” but with more onerous paperwork, said Smith. It involves a promoter sponsoring the band and checking their eligibility and vouching for them during their stay in the UK, from a few days to up to 90 days.”
It says what visa exemption they intended to use, and what the requirements are for that visa exemption, but it doesn’t say that the band turned up at the border with those requirements met.
Because if they’re turned up at the border with the requirements met, they wouldn’t have been turned away, would they?
My best guess would be that the band’s management just saw ‘free’, but missed the requirements for a formal invite letter from the venue, proof of funds, and a return ticket.
Sorry but this is a terrible take, they showed up with their passports and they're clearly touring not coming here to live permanently. The requirement for the cos is a nonsense
I agree about the COS, but the process is reciprocal. I’d be all in favour of scrapping requirements for most cultural and sporting exchanges.
From that article, it appears the EU offered a standard reciprocal 90 day system, and the UK said "can we have that, but 30 days instead" and the EU said no.
Watched the Diplomat yesterday on Netflix. The first few episodes don't grab me, my wife, who has served in the Swiss diplomatic service in the Swiss Embassy for the UK was extremely unimpressed.
It's a drama, not a documentary.
Is "Hamlet" crap because it doesn't accurately portray political governance in medieval Denmark?
Yes and don't get me started on the whole 'Hollow Crown' cycle...
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.
If you read the story even more carefully, they did have paperwork but for a different scheme: PPE rather than COS. (Is PPE the most overloaded acronym?)
From the article: “Smith, who has been in touch with the band, said they did not have the COS certificates. 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.
“A COS is an alternative route into the UK, regarded as “a safer bet” but with more onerous paperwork, said Smith. It involves a promoter sponsoring the band and checking their eligibility and vouching for them during their stay in the UK, from a few days to up to 90 days.”
It says what visa exemption they intended to use, and what the requirements are for that visa exemption, but it doesn’t say that the band turned up at the border with those requirements met.
Because if they’re turned up at the border with the requirements met, they wouldn’t have been turned away, would they?
My best guess would be that the band’s management just saw ‘free’, but missed the requirements for a formal invite letter from the venue, proof of funds, and a return ticket.
Sorry but this is a terrible take, they showed up with their passports and they're clearly touring not coming here to live permanently. The requirement for the cos is a nonsense
I agree about the COS, but the process is reciprocal. I’d be all in favour of scrapping requirements for most cultural and sporting exchanges.
From that article, it appears the EU offered a standard reciprocal 90 day system, and the UK said "can we have that, but 30 days instead" and the EU said no.
Oh, but surely you can't be doubting "an EU source close to the negotiations"? I know the negotiations are in the past, but have you forgotten that the EU's position was Holy Writ?
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.
If you read the story even more carefully, they did have paperwork but for a different scheme: PPE rather than COS. (Is PPE the most overloaded acronym?)
From the article: “Smith, who has been in touch with the band, said they did not have the COS certificates. 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.
“A COS is an alternative route into the UK, regarded as “a safer bet” but with more onerous paperwork, said Smith. It involves a promoter sponsoring the band and checking their eligibility and vouching for them during their stay in the UK, from a few days to up to 90 days.”
It says what visa exemption they intended to use, and what the requirements are for that visa exemption, but it doesn’t say that the band turned up at the border with those requirements met.
Because if they’re turned up at the border with the requirements met, they wouldn’t have been turned away, would they?
My best guess would be that the band’s management just saw ‘free’, but missed the requirements for a formal invite letter from the venue, proof of funds, and a return ticket.
Sorry but this is a terrible take, they showed up with their passports and they're clearly touring not coming here to live permanently. The requirement for the cos is a nonsense
I agree about the COS, but the process is reciprocal. I’d be all in favour of scrapping requirements for most cultural and sporting exchanges.
From that article, it appears the EU offered a standard reciprocal 90 day system, and the UK said "can we have that, but 30 days instead" and the EU said no.
UK insisting on special treatment from the EU & then acting all surprised when we don’t get it is kind of the story of the Brexit negotiations isn’t it?
(Also, it turns out our 30-day offer isn’t as generous as it seems, since it seems to be the actual PPE 30-day visa for professional artists & sportspeople which has been at the centre of this particular controversy that the Government expected to get a reciprical deal for. If an actual touring band from Germany, coming here to do nothing but play music in well known music venues & not to do anything else cannot enter under this 30-day scheme, then perhaps it wasn’t that generous in the first place?)
@gallardo_ortega The EU has issued private warnings to the UK government against any attempt to bypass decisions by the European Court of Human Rights in order to offshore asylum seekers to Rwanda.
Watched the Diplomat yesterday on Netflix. The first few episodes don't grab me, my wife, who has served in the Swiss diplomatic service in the Swiss Embassy for the UK was extremely unimpressed.
It's a drama, not a documentary.
Is "Hamlet" crap because it doesn't accurately portray political governance in medieval Denmark?
Yes and don't get me started on the whole 'Hollow Crown' cycle...
Disgracefully The Return of the King got planning regulations in Minas Tirith completely wrong.
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.
If you read the story even more carefully, they did have paperwork but for a different scheme: PPE rather than COS. (Is PPE the most overloaded acronym?)
From the article: “Smith, who has been in touch with the band, said they did not have the COS certificates. 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.
“A COS is an alternative route into the UK, regarded as “a safer bet” but with more onerous paperwork, said Smith. It involves a promoter sponsoring the band and checking their eligibility and vouching for them during their stay in the UK, from a few days to up to 90 days.”
It says what visa exemption they intended to use, and what the requirements are for that visa exemption, but it doesn’t say that the band turned up at the border with those requirements met.
Because if they’re turned up at the border with the requirements met, they wouldn’t have been turned away, would they?
My best guess would be that the band’s management just saw ‘free’, but missed the requirements for a formal invite letter from the venue, proof of funds, and a return ticket.
Sorry but this is a terrible take, they showed up with their passports and they're clearly touring not coming here to live permanently. The requirement for the cos is a nonsense
I agree about the COS, but the process is reciprocal. I’d be all in favour of scrapping requirements for most cultural and sporting exchanges.
From that article, it appears the EU offered a standard reciprocal 90 day system, and the UK said "can we have that, but 30 days instead" and the EU said no.
Oh, but surely you can't be doubting "an EU source close to the negotiations"? I know the negotiations are in the past, but have you forgotten that the EU's position was Holy Writ?
It's interesting to see the SNP bringing Scotland more in line with England.
Once we have as much raw sewage in our rivers as England, the Indy dream will be over.
Not going to happen because population differences... Rather hard to find much sewage in the Highlands...
On a serious point, how has the government allowed the narrative to form that water companies have only just started putting sewage into rivers? The situation today is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago. There is much more to be done, but the current situation is being amplified because events are being recorded.
Offtopic, a totally fascinating piece about Fox News, with alums Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and Megyn Kelly, discussing the departure of Tucker Carlson and the future of the channel
First quote of note: O’Reilly: Trump would not have been president without the Fox News channel Beck: Agreed O’Reilly: And now that’s gone. He doesn’t have that advantage for the upcoming election. That’s the big story here.
That’s a good piece, and reflects how Ailes and Murdoch wanted to do things a decade or two ago.
The big takeaway from the linked video, is that all three former Fox hosts now have a much bigger reach and are earning more money, having left the network. Media is changing, and moving online. Carlson has the potential to be #2 to Joe Rogan in the podcast world, or to set up his own media empire, as the likes of Beck and Ben Shapiro have done in the US.
@gallardo_ortega The EU has issued private warnings to the UK government against any attempt to bypass decisions by the European Court of Human Rights in order to offshore asylum seekers to Rwanda.
Watched the Diplomat yesterday on Netflix. The first few episodes don't grab me, my wife, who has served in the Swiss diplomatic service in the Swiss Embassy for the UK was extremely unimpressed.
It's a drama, not a documentary.
Is "Hamlet" crap because it doesn't accurately portray political governance in medieval Denmark?
Are drama, novels or news coverage ever convincingly accurate when dealing with anything you really know quite a lot about?
That odd feeling when national news covers stories in your local area...
My dad read a story in the Daily Mail about a ship sinking carrying foreign currency and was livid it was all wrong. He was very involved in the circumstances of the event. I should point out he wasn't responsible for the ship sinking, although going by some of the stories he used to tell us about cock ups I wouldn't have been surprised if he had been. And he was interviewed by the police about money reappearing from the depths.
Anyway, the point of this story is ever since then he still thought every story he read in the Daily Mail was true, even though he had ample evidence, from the one occasion he really knew the full story, that they published rubbish.
I think I have already told the story of his involvement in the Iran tank deal that has festered for decades. They let him retire early and that came as no surprise to us at all. Fortunately he was only a very junior civil servant so the blame for these events could always be laid elsewhere.
@gallardo_ortega The EU has issued private warnings to the UK government against any attempt to bypass decisions by the European Court of Human Rights in order to offshore asylum seekers to Rwanda.
If the comments above are accurate (we wanted a 30 day reciprocal deal, the EU wanted 90 and we ended up with no deal at all) that does remind me a bit of the ludicrous Commons votes over intervention in Syria, in which 95% of MPs wanted it but enough voted against both the Labour and Conservative motions that nothing happened.
It's interesting to see the SNP bringing Scotland more in line with England.
Once we have as much raw sewage in our rivers as England, the Indy dream will be over.
Not going to happen because population differences... Rather hard to find much sewage in the Highlands...
On a serious point, how has the government allowed the narrative to form that water companies have only just started putting sewage into rivers? The situation today is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago. There is much more to be done, but the current situation is being amplified because events are being recorded.
Glasgow has one of the higher population densities in the UK. I can’t move for stories about stories of salmon returning to the Clyde and trout in the Kelvin. Still wouldn’t fancy a dip around Govan mind.
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.
Agree with your general point that the government has made no formal commitment to these Nepalese, nor prior to the collapse of Kabul should it have done. Nevertheless the circumstances in which these people ended their time in Afghanistan was very different from at the start. The government doesn't appear to have treated them transparently or with consideration. The fundamental purpose of an immigration system doesn't need to treat people like shits. So I also agree with the comment in the header.
It's interesting to see the SNP bringing Scotland more in line with England.
It just goes to show how everything is sinking to the lowest common denominator. From Presenters who cannot pronounce to journos who cannot spell , to staff who cannot add up.. Eeverything in Govt is presented for the General Public to a reading age of 11. When the BBC seems to feel the need to explain what GDP and Recession are to its readers you know things are in a bad way.
If the comments above are accurate (we wanted a 30 day reciprocal deal, the EU wanted 90 and we ended up with no deal at all) that does remind me a bit of the ludicrous Commons votes over intervention in Syria, in which 95% of MPs wanted it but enough voted against both the Labour and Conservative motions that nothing happened.
I do sometimes wonder what our democratic institutions would look like if we had secret ballots in the Commons.
Good for publishers of legal textbooks and the cv of whoever's idea this is but from the linked article, probably bad for justice.
A study published in 2019 found removing the not proven verdict might incline more jurors towards a guilty verdict in finely balanced trials. ... The general perception among the public is often that a "not proven" verdict suggests a sheriff or jury believes the accused is guilty, but does not have sufficient evidence to convict. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65397235
Taking those two paragraphs together suggests more guilty verdicts even when there is insufficient evidence, and so more miscarriages of justice. I suppose proponents will say that is a price worth paying if fewer criminals evade justice because of police incompetence.
It's interesting to see the SNP bringing Scotland more in line with England.
Once we have as much raw sewage in our rivers as England, the Indy dream will be over.
Not going to happen because population differences... Rather hard to find much sewage in the Highlands...
On a serious point, how has the government allowed the narrative to form that water companies have only just started putting sewage into rivers? The situation today is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago. There is much more to be done, but the current situation is being amplified because events are being recorded.
Out of curiosity, if events have only started being recorded in recent years, how do you know that the sewage situation now is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago?
Will he throw a strop on twitter about this review?
It's true that he is a figure of fun who doesn't realise that he's a figure of fun.
“ But Bringing Down Goliath is a bold title for a tale in which Goliath suffers nothing worse than the occasional stubbed toe.”
“ And so he admits what many have long suspected: the Good Law Project sees the Administrative courts as Just Stop Oil sees snooker tables — as a platform for attention-seeking.”
It's interesting to see the SNP bringing Scotland more in line with England.
Once we have as much raw sewage in our rivers as England, the Indy dream will be over.
Not going to happen because population differences... Rather hard to find much sewage in the Highlands...
On a serious point, how has the government allowed the narrative to form that water companies have only just started putting sewage into rivers? The situation today is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago. There is much more to be done, but the current situation is being amplified because events are being recorded.
Out of curiosity, if events have only started being recorded in recent years, how do you know that the sewage situation now is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago?
Great question. Generally the health of our rivers is vastly better than before, albeit that's mostly anecdotal.
However I believe it is true, unless there is evidence that it's not.
Will he throw a strop on twitter about this review?
It's true that he is a figure of fun who doesn't realise that he's a figure of fun.
“ But Bringing Down Goliath is a bold title for a tale in which Goliath suffers nothing worse than the occasional stubbed toe.”
“ And so he admits what many have long suspected: the Good Law Project sees the Administrative courts as Just Stop Oil sees snooker tables — as a platform for attention-seeking.”
It's interesting to see the SNP bringing Scotland more in line with England.
Once we have as much raw sewage in our rivers as England, the Indy dream will be over.
Not going to happen because population differences... Rather hard to find much sewage in the Highlands...
On a serious point, how has the government allowed the narrative to form that water companies have only just started putting sewage into rivers? The situation today is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago. There is much more to be done, but the current situation is being amplified because events are being recorded.
Out of curiosity, if events have only started being recorded in recent years, how do you know that the sewage situation now is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago?
It's interesting to see the SNP bringing Scotland more in line with England.
Once we have as much raw sewage in our rivers as England, the Indy dream will be over.
Not going to happen because population differences... Rather hard to find much sewage in the Highlands...
On a serious point, how has the government allowed the narrative to form that water companies have only just started putting sewage into rivers? The situation today is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago. There is much more to be done, but the current situation is being amplified because events are being recorded.
Out of curiosity, if events have only started being recorded in recent years, how do you know that the sewage situation now is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago?
Great question. Generally the health of our rivers is vastly better than before, albeit that's mostly anecdotal.
However I believe it is true, unless there is evidence that it's not.
Thank you. So you have no idea whether the sewage situation has improved, stayed the same, or worsened over the last 20-30 years.
It's interesting to see the SNP bringing Scotland more in line with England.
Once we have as much raw sewage in our rivers as England, the Indy dream will be over.
Not going to happen because population differences... Rather hard to find much sewage in the Highlands...
On a serious point, how has the government allowed the narrative to form that water companies have only just started putting sewage into rivers? The situation today is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago. There is much more to be done, but the current situation is being amplified because events are being recorded.
Out of curiosity, if events have only started being recorded in recent years, how do you know that the sewage situation now is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago?
Great question. Generally the health of our rivers is vastly better than before, albeit that's mostly anecdotal.
However I believe it is true, unless there is evidence that it's not.
Thank you. So you have no idea whether the sewage situation has improved, stayed the same, or worsened over the last 20-30 years.
Not what I said. There is a lot of evidence of water quality improvement over the years. There has been a specific requirement recently to monitor sewage release and this has been seized on as if the releases had just started, which is not the case. Do you think rivers were cleaner in 1990?
It's interesting to see the SNP bringing Scotland more in line with England.
Once we have as much raw sewage in our rivers as England, the Indy dream will be over.
Not going to happen because population differences... Rather hard to find much sewage in the Highlands...
On a serious point, how has the government allowed the narrative to form that water companies have only just started putting sewage into rivers? The situation today is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago. There is much more to be done, but the current situation is being amplified because events are being recorded.
Out of curiosity, if events have only started being recorded in recent years, how do you know that the sewage situation now is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago?
Great question. Generally the health of our rivers is vastly better than before, albeit that's mostly anecdotal.
However I believe it is true, unless there is evidence that it's not.
Thank you. So you have no idea whether the sewage situation has improved, stayed the same, or worsened over the last 20-30 years.
Not what I said. There is a lot of evidence of water quality improvement over the years. There has been a specific requirement recently to monitor sewage release and this has been seized on as if the releases had just started, which is not the case. Do you think rivers were cleaner in 1990?
For example, phosphate levels in the Thames have fallen to pre WWII levels from some staggering peaks in the 1960s.
Good for publishers of legal textbooks and the cv of whoever's idea this is but from the linked article, probably bad for justice.
A study published in 2019 found removing the not proven verdict might incline more jurors towards a guilty verdict in finely balanced trials. ... The general perception among the public is often that a "not proven" verdict suggests a sheriff or jury believes the accused is guilty, but does not have sufficient evidence to convict. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65397235
Taking those two paragraphs together suggests more guilty verdicts even when there is insufficient evidence, and so more miscarriages of justice. I suppose proponents will say that is a price worth paying if fewer criminals evade justice because of police incompetence.
Instinctively, I would say that the removal of 'not proven' would probably lead to more not guilty verdicts, because presumably a conviction has to be 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
In a lot of ways the legal system, and the judiciary itself, is the final bastion against the 'woke'. It is the final wall that a project of social transformation based on highly emotive concepts slams in to... Rules, evidence, proof.
It's interesting to see the SNP bringing Scotland more in line with England.
Once we have as much raw sewage in our rivers as England, the Indy dream will be over.
Not going to happen because population differences... Rather hard to find much sewage in the Highlands...
On a serious point, how has the government allowed the narrative to form that water companies have only just started putting sewage into rivers? The situation today is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago. There is much more to be done, but the current situation is being amplified because events are being recorded.
Out of curiosity, if events have only started being recorded in recent years, how do you know that the sewage situation now is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago?
Great question. Generally the health of our rivers is vastly better than before, albeit that's mostly anecdotal.
However I believe it is true, unless there is evidence that it's not.
Thank you. So you have no idea whether the sewage situation has improved, stayed the same, or worsened over the last 20-30 years.
Not what I said. There is a lot of evidence of water quality improvement over the years. There has been a specific requirement recently to monitor sewage release and this has been seized on as if the releases had just started, which is not the case. Do you think rivers were cleaner in 1990?
What you said is that your view was 'mostly anecdotal', which isn't very convincing.
I don't know whether our rivers were cleaner in 1990. I'd guess at a mixed picture - some pollutants may have diminished, others increased. What I do know is that the water companies are a bunch of profit-seeking charlatans who won't care too much about sewage leaks unless either a) public opinion, and/or b) government action forces them to do something - and well before 2050.
It's interesting to see the SNP bringing Scotland more in line with England.
Once we have as much raw sewage in our rivers as England, the Indy dream will be over.
Not going to happen because population differences... Rather hard to find much sewage in the Highlands...
On a serious point, how has the government allowed the narrative to form that water companies have only just started putting sewage into rivers? The situation today is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago. There is much more to be done, but the current situation is being amplified because events are being recorded.
Out of curiosity, if events have only started being recorded in recent years, how do you know that the sewage situation now is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago?
Great question. Generally the health of our rivers is vastly better than before, albeit that's mostly anecdotal.
However I believe it is true, unless there is evidence that it's not.
Thank you. So you have no idea whether the sewage situation has improved, stayed the same, or worsened over the last 20-30 years.
Not what I said. There is a lot of evidence of water quality improvement over the years. There has been a specific requirement recently to monitor sewage release and this has been seized on as if the releases had just started, which is not the case. Do you think rivers were cleaner in 1990?
For example, phosphate levels in the Thames have fallen to pre WWII levels from some staggering peaks in the 1960s.
The Don has gone from being functionally dead to having salmon spawning grounds.
It's interesting to see the SNP bringing Scotland more in line with England.
Once we have as much raw sewage in our rivers as England, the Indy dream will be over.
Not going to happen because population differences... Rather hard to find much sewage in the Highlands...
On a serious point, how has the government allowed the narrative to form that water companies have only just started putting sewage into rivers? The situation today is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago. There is much more to be done, but the current situation is being amplified because events are being recorded.
Out of curiosity, if events have only started being recorded in recent years, how do you know that the sewage situation now is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago?
Great question. Generally the health of our rivers is vastly better than before, albeit that's mostly anecdotal.
However I believe it is true, unless there is evidence that it's not.
Thank you. So you have no idea whether the sewage situation has improved, stayed the same, or worsened over the last 20-30 years.
Not what I said. There is a lot of evidence of water quality improvement over the years. There has been a specific requirement recently to monitor sewage release and this has been seized on as if the releases had just started, which is not the case. Do you think rivers were cleaner in 1990?
What you said is that your view was 'mostly anecdotal', which isn't very convincing.
I don't know whether our rivers were cleaner in 1990. I'd guess at a mixed picture - some pollutants may have diminished, others increased. What I do know is that the water companies are a bunch of profit-seeking charlatans who won't care too much about sewage leaks unless either a) public opinion, and/or b) government action forces them to do something - and well before 2050.
I don't disagree. I would rather like a Britain with zero sewage going into rivers and the sea. I just think the recent campaign is somewhat dishonest in how it portrays the issue.
Comments
It could be argued that the pivotal moment in the 2010 campaign came when the Labour candidate decided to stand again for her County Council seat in the 2009 elections. If I recall, she went from 1st place to 5th and never really recovered.
“Smith, who has been in touch with the band, said they did not have the COS certificates. 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.
“A COS is an alternative route into the UK, regarded as “a safer bet” but with more onerous paperwork, said Smith. It involves a promoter sponsoring the band and checking their eligibility and vouching for them during their stay in the UK, from a few days to up to 90 days.”
It says what visa exemption they intended to use, and what the requirements are for that visa exemption, but it doesn’t say that the band turned up at the border with those requirements met.
Because if they’re turned up at the border with the requirements met, they wouldn’t have been turned away, would they?
My best guess would be that the band’s management just saw ‘free’, but missed the requirements for a formal invite letter from the venue, proof of funds, and a return ticket.
I stand by what I said about 2015. That was a definite shoot yourself in both feet and I was staggered by how stupid an idea it was.
There is a certain irony about the issues around Cannock Hospital which has of course now been downgraded...
Again, it's a story the government would prefer doesn't get much airing; they'd rather we didn't argue about the paperwork introduced by them post Brexit at all.
was a very casualised arrangement that
happened almost by accident, like getting a particular Uber driver. This was not at all an arrangement with a UK allied PMC where near Gurkha types were actively imported into a war zone to protection for UK interests.
I guess all those girls turned up.on Epstein island entirely by happenstance as well?
the paperwork introduced by them postBrexit at all.We all have our biases, of course we do, and whether or not the paperwork is appropriate is a different argument, but “band turned away because they didn’t have the paperwork required” isn’t really much of a story.
The band themselves said:
"We are so sorry...our preparations concerning every detail of the tour were extremely good we thought. All the custom shit together and had our letters of invitation at hand. "
and:
"Hey Guys, we're back from Calais 🙁 actually we thought we could start our Trigger Cut Tour yesterday, but the UK Border Police taught us otherwise. We had all the papers we needed but the Border Police wanted them have a so-called certificate of sponsorship from all 7 clubs. This certificate or number was unknown even to the organizers. Nobody knew about it!!"
What do you think in the article is misleading?
For example the most recent Express story I found was this, from a year ago:
https://www.express.co.uk/celebrity-news/1642824/elton-john-tour-dates-live-concert-brexit-eu-appg-dover-children-young-songs-latest-news/amp
Ask any musician who tours whether it's a story or not.
Suddenly I don’t feel so bad in helping Andrea Jenkyns get elected 😁
Dear friends, bad news for all people who await Trigger Cut in the United Kingdom. Today we got refused at the UK border for weird reasons. We would have needed a special certificate of sponsorship but noone knew before, not even the venues, promoters or the german customs authority. Brexit bureaucracye??? a post Brexit nightmare.😢😢😢
We are so sorry...our preparations concerning every detail of the tour were extremely good we thought. All the custom shit together and had our letters of invitation at hand. Last but not least the whole procedure at UK border was humuliating and sad. We are so so sorry but we cannot make the UK Tour happen. Brexit finally killed the cultural interaction between all of us. It was a sad experience. Take care. Hopefully see you soon. Trigger Cut
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=987352065561832&id=100028611441026
ETA so the Guardian is exonerated.
As it happens, my personal view is that stuff like touring bands and sports teams with equipment are a real pain in the arse. It should be top of the list for the next UK/EU summit. It’s much worse for smaller bands and orchestras, who don’t have professional management and rely on volunteers.
Is "Hamlet" crap because it doesn't accurately portray political governance in medieval Denmark?
But.
Having watched the first few episodes isn't the point that they are grooming her for (at least) VP so are intentionally involving her over and above what would usually be the case for an ambassador.
Plus where is the Chevening they are using?
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-fire-brigade-police-transphobia-lgbtq-whitechapel-flat-arson-b1075478.html?itm_source=Internal&itm_channel=article_banner&itm_campaign=breaking-news-ticker&itm_content=2
Meanwhile the steady drumbeat of anti trans culture war articles in the press continue, so I sadly expect we’ll see more of this kind of stochastic terrorism in the next year or so at least, with those responsible for spreading hate absolutely refusing to recognise any connection between their words & these actions. Isn’t deniability great?
https://twitter.com/MorningConsult/status/1651137056645545985?s=20
He said the question was "insulting" when asked why he had not told the Commons finance staff. He said it would have been up to Peter Grant, the party's treasurer at Westminster to do so.
"I think your question is awful and let's leave it at that," he said….
"I didn't pass that information on because that wouldn't be my responsibility to do so. There is a leadership team and they have dedicated responsibility. Your question is insulting quite frankly. How dare you. How dare you."
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23480703.snp-not-tell-commons-finance-team-auditorss-exit-months/
Read as a completely artificial stage play about a marriage between a devious political operator and his career minded wife, it was quite fun, even if the actual events depicted are completely ludicrous & disconnected from the reality of international relations between UK/US & the role of the diplomat themselves.
I'd agree simpler arrangements should be put in place for these sorts of cultural events, and also school trips.
Understanding that it's a fictional universe doesn't preclude noting the failures of logic in the drama.
As I noted upthread, these stories go largely unreported in the right of centre media. I'd be more impressed by the quibbling if anyone else were doing it better.
https://unherd.com/2023/04/is-jolyon-maugham-the-new-alan-partridge/
The house being used as a stand-in for Winfield is Wrotham Park apparently.
The requirement for the cos is a nonsense
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Jm4La0nqiG4
First quote of note:
O’Reilly: Trump would not have been president without the Fox News channel
Beck: Agreed
O’Reilly: And now that’s gone. He doesn’t have that advantage for the upcoming election. That’s the big story here.
We’re not likely to get a detailed explanation, but speculation I’ve seen on Twitter from people who know more about this stuff than I do is that they were deemed ineligible for the former due to a technicality in the defintions - that visa is only available to “professional musicians” (or other artists) & if you don’t make your income primarily from your art (i.e., like many many artists you have a full or mostly full time job that pays the bills & a do music as much for the love of it as for the income) then you are not eligible for the PPE visa.
It’s this latter requirement that is not spelt out on the government website which details the visa requirements & may or may not be intentional, but is (apparently) how the rules are being interpreted by immigration officials: https://www.gov.uk/permitted-paid-engagement-visitor The EU did offer a reciprocal scheme during the Brexit negotiations, similar to the one that existed prior to 1974, but the government flatly refused to consider it. They were incompetent muppets who were incapable of recognising a good idea if it whacked them in the face, because “Brexit good, EU bad” was the absolute rule at the time.
But we kind of knew that already, didn’t we?
When I pointed out to a senior civil servant that this is provably impossible - humans are non-linear - the response was entertaining. It was as if I had denied The True Faith.
https://twitter.com/staylorish/status/1651132266876116994?s=20
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65397235
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/04/24/tucker-carlson-departure-fox-news-00093559
That odd feeling when national news covers stories in your local area...
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/
(Also, it turns out our 30-day offer isn’t as generous as it seems, since it seems to be the actual PPE 30-day visa for professional artists & sportspeople which has been at the centre of this particular controversy that the Government expected to get a reciprical deal for. If an actual touring band from Germany, coming here to do nothing but play music in well known music venues & not to do anything else cannot enter under this 30-day scheme, then perhaps it wasn’t that generous in the first place?)
The EU has issued private warnings to the UK government against any attempt to bypass decisions by the European Court of Human Rights in order to offshore asylum seekers to Rwanda.
https://twitter.com/gallardo_ortega/status/1651148090173272070
Is that a good enough source for you?
On a serious point, how has the government allowed the narrative to form that water companies have only just started putting sewage into rivers? The situation today is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago. There is much more to be done, but the current situation is being amplified because events are being recorded.
The big takeaway from the linked video, is that all three former Fox hosts now have a much bigger reach and are earning more money, having left the network. Media is changing, and moving online. Carlson has the potential to be #2 to Joe Rogan in the podcast world, or to set up his own media empire, as the likes of Beck and Ben Shapiro have done in the US.
Anyway, the point of this story is ever since then he still thought every story he read in the Daily Mail was true, even though he had ample evidence, from the one occasion he really knew the full story, that they published rubbish.
I think I have already told the story of his involvement in the Iran tank deal that has festered for decades. They let him retire early and that came as no surprise to us at all. Fortunately he was only a very junior civil servant so the blame for these events could always be laid elsewhere.
If the comments above are accurate (we wanted a 30 day reciprocal deal, the EU wanted 90 and we ended up with no deal at all) that does remind me a bit of the ludicrous Commons votes over intervention in Syria, in which 95% of MPs wanted it but enough voted against both the Labour and Conservative motions that nothing happened.
I agree with
When the BBC seems to feel the need to explain what GDP and Recession are to its readers you know things are in a bad way.
3m
Which of the following do you think would make the best Prime Minister?
Rishi Sunak: 26% (no change from 12-13 Apr)
Keir Starmer: 29% (+1)
Not sure: 41% (=)
3m
Latest Westminster voting intention (18-19 Apr)
Con: 28% (-1 from 12-13 Apr)
Lab: 43% (-2)
Lib Dem: 10% (=)
Reform UK: 7% (+1)
Green: 6% (+1)
SNP: 2% (-1)
But fair.
A study published in 2019 found removing the not proven verdict might incline more jurors towards a guilty verdict in finely balanced trials.
...
The general perception among the public is often that a "not proven" verdict suggests a sheriff or jury believes the accused is guilty, but does not have sufficient evidence to convict.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65397235
Taking those two paragraphs together suggests more guilty verdicts even when there is insufficient evidence, and so more miscarriages of justice. I suppose proponents will say that is a price worth paying if fewer criminals evade justice because of police incompetence.
It's true that he is a figure of fun who doesn't realise that he's a figure of fun.
When everyone you encounter is an arsehole, then the likelihood is that *you* are the arsehole.
https://andrewtickell.co.uk/2021/04/11/not-proven/
“ And so he admits what many have long suspected: the Good Law Project sees the Administrative courts as Just Stop Oil sees snooker tables — as a platform for attention-seeking.”
A great piece from Adam King.
However I believe it is true, unless there is evidence that it's not.
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/8w0a2xhvy8/TheTimes_VI_Results_221021_W.pdf
Today they have it at 15
SKS Fans please explain
Do you think rivers were cleaner in 1990?
Today they have it at 15
SKS Fans please explain
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/r2r7ejhs5x/TheTimes_VI_230215_W_.pdf
Then again Michael Shrimpton was a judge.
In a lot of ways the legal system, and the judiciary itself, is the final bastion against the 'woke'. It is the final wall that a project of social transformation based on highly emotive concepts slams in to... Rules, evidence, proof.
I don't know whether our rivers were cleaner in 1990. I'd guess at a mixed picture - some pollutants may have diminished, others increased. What I do know is that the water companies are a bunch of profit-seeking charlatans who won't care too much about sewage leaks unless either a) public opinion, and/or b) government action forces them to do something - and well before 2050.