Note immigration has fallen below 100, 000 for EU net immigration post Brexit, it is non-EU immigration where it has reason substantially to now over 500,000. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65669832
"Note immigration has fallen below 100, 000 for EU net immigration post Brexit, it is non-EU immigration where it has risen substantially to now over 500,000".
Remain should have put that on the side of a bus.
It couldn't have done pre referendum. It is Brexit and the end of EU free movement that has reduced net EU immigration.
Though I take the view it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on Eastern European migration for 7 years in 2004 like Germany that won it for Leave. Had he done so it would probably have been Remain 52% Leave 48% rather than the reverse
I don't think this is true. The wave of migration into Europe in 2015 was a much bigger factor than migration within the EU after expansion.
It was Blair's failure to impose transition controls from 2004 that led to the real UKIP surge and pressure for the EU referendum though.
UKIP went from just 6% in the 1999 EU Parliament elections in the UK to 15% in 2004, 16% in 2009 and then topped the poll in 2014 with 26%. Pressure of leaking Tory votes to UKIP then forced Cameron as PM to concede the promise of an EU referendum if the Tories won a majority in 2015
So UK's initial polling surge predated EU expansion and they made no progress in the subsequent 5 years when net EU migration spiked?
UKIP's initial polling surge was 2004-2009 ie exactly when transition controls were not imposed
1999-2004 predates EU expansion though and that's when they went from also-rans to 15%.
Of course a big booster to their campaign was the fact the EU elections became proportional representation - something long desired by racist shitbag parties of all stripes as it makes it much easier for them to get elected. Which is why the EU elections had significant numbers of racist shitbags elected but Parliament does not.
I'm curious if @TOPPING will answer as to whether everyone who voted Yes to AV in 2011 as Farage wanted and Farage campaigned in favour of was voting with and for racist shitbags? As that's his logic.
By all means continue with the fiction that the referendum was fought over widget regulations. It was fought over immigration. I don't think the 2011 AV vote likewise had immigration at its core.
So the 17 million people who voted to Leave were all racists, and yet the UK is consistently one of the least racist countries in the world. Im not following your logic.
You can want immigration to be reduced and not be a racist. But the referendum was fought over immigration. That will necessarily include a lot of racist shitbags. No one on PB, of course.
As they say, not everyone who voted Leave was a racist, while everyone who was a racist voted Leave.
No racists voted Remain?
That's troll logic.
I'm ignoring rounding errors.
There's always been an element in fascism that favours the unity of white European peoples. There have always been elements of Welsh, Irish, and Scottish nationalism that have a strong dislike of the English, and others they deem interlopers. And, among left wing Remain voters, there would certainly have been some who dislike Jews. The NUS, in particular, has a problem with Jewish students.
Note immigration has fallen below 100, 000 for EU net immigration post Brexit, it is non-EU immigration where it has reason substantially to now over 500,000. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65669832
"Note immigration has fallen below 100, 000 for EU net immigration post Brexit, it is non-EU immigration where it has risen substantially to now over 500,000".
Remain should have put that on the side of a bus.
It couldn't have done pre referendum. It is Brexit and the end of EU free movement that has reduced net EU immigration.
Though I take the view it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on Eastern European migration for 7 years in 2004 like Germany that won it for Leave. Had he done so it would probably have been Remain 52% Leave 48% rather than the reverse
It's ok - you are on the right side of history on this one. Sometimes it is worth being on a particular side just because of who is on the other side.
Despite all the PB Leavers falling over themselves to say how much they welcome immigration, nevertheless they hitched their trailer to quite a racist undertaking in the campaigns to leave the EU.
The official Vote Leave campaign made a point, quite a good one, that by controlling immigration we could end discrimination against non-Europeans and increase non-EU migration.
Which is exactly what has happened.
Yes Farage and co may have been racist shitbags, but so what? If a racist told you not to cross a level crossing while the red lights were flashing and a train was approaching would you say "well if you're telling me not to, I better had"?
Ending "discrimination" by the EU? That's like saying that the UK discriminates in favour of existing subjects of HMtK when it comes to passports, etc.
Yes, end discrimination by the EU.
If you want the EU to be a single country, then that's a perfectly legitimate argument to make, but its not what a majority of this country ever wanted. And unless or until the EU becomes a single nation then when it comes to immigration into this country it was absolutely extremely discriminatory in the past with citizens of some other countries able to move here freely and draconian restrictions on non-EU migrants.
By having a level playing field people are treated more fairly regardless of nationality.
Since I oppose discrimination, I think a level playing field is a good thing.
False dichotomy. Allowing freedom of movement between given geographies is not EITHER a function of a single state OR discriminatory. There are sound reasons why different pairs of countries have different migration statuses, which are sometimes asymmetrical. A lot could depend on the level of economic integration between the countries. The EU's single-market approach requires freedom of movement of labour for citizens of member countries for perfectly sound reasons. It acknowledges that labour is part of that market.
Accusations of racism on here to support a particular point of view are risible.
Australia and NZ have FOM. Is that racist against countries with whom there is no similar arrangement? Only an utter nut job would argue thus.
It is also not necessarily racist to prefer lower immigration. Let us be honest that the volumes of migration since the late 90s have been unprecedentedly massive.
It’s true that Nigel Farage in particular flirted with racist tropes during the Brexit campaign, and xenophobia of various types, including outright racism, likely swung the vote to Brexit.
Brexiters have to live with that.
One of the biggest and most racist Leave lies was that Turkey would be imminently joining the EU and there’d be nothing we could do to stop that or Turkish citizens flooding into the country.
A new video has been released showing the moment a Ukrainian naval drone impacts the Ivan Khurs. The damage sustained by the Russian ship is unknown. The Russian Defense Ministry claimed to have destroyed all the drones. https://twitter.com/COUPSURE/status/1661727122577326080
Technically, the drone was destroyed.
When it impacted the ship.
With drones like that, could it have been a coordinated multi-axis attack?...
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
The ECB is going to have to up the pay of England players significantly.
England players salaries have historically always been very low compared to the revenue generated - because you have no choice which country you play for - so the ECB could get away with underpaying.
ECB gets £220m per year from Sky - vast majority of that relates to international cricket. But how much goes to England players? I would say about £20m.
In most professional sports the players get well over 50% of the revenue generated.
Whereas the ECB has historically spent all kinds of money on various projects, admin etc (plus in fairness supporting the counties).
Going forward this will have to change. They'll need to move top England players on to say £2m+ and everyone playing regularly will need to be on £1m+. So probably £50m to the players (allowing for all formats you are probably looking at about 30-35 England players).
But the ECB can do that if they want to. They will just have to get real and take on the competition.
Yes and no. Test cricket is still the pinnacle of the game, and the best players want to prove themselves at that level. This has been the causes of most of the issues with IPL etc - if players didn't care about test cricket they would have just gone for the money, but they mostly have tried to balance things.
I'm also not sure that the vast majority is about test cricket. Sky shows the T20 Blast through the summer, and also County Champs games too. I get that the international games are huge, but Sky are buying the whole package, not just internationals.
I think the only County Championship match Sky have shown so far this season was Surrey vs Middlesex. If Sky really had paid a lot of money for the County Championship then it's a bit odd I've been able to see all the other matches streamed for free on YouTube.
Lots of action on the animal welfare front today. The Government has dropped its own Kept Animals Bill, which would have banned live exports and had already passed two readings in the Commons, and instead have said that its contents will be put forward in separate bills later in this Parliament. This is a long-standing commitment which was advanced as one benefit of Brexit, and it featured prominently in the Government Animal Welfare Plan only last year. Campaigners are incensed, and I've got a strong interview on it which will probably be in tomorrow's Farming Today.
Meanwhile, the Animal Sentience Committee has finally been set up, after a year's delay - this is a genuinely positive measure with five independent experts monitoring what the Government does on animal welfare. To be fair, it's not often that Governments set up bodies to challenge Ministers, and they deserve credit for it
There isn’t that much time left in Parliament. Is this another broken Tory / Brexit promise?
Yes, probably, for exactly that reason (lack of time in this Parliament). But I'll be pleased to be proved wrong.
Lots of action on the animal welfare front today. The Government has dropped its own Kept Animals Bill, which would have banned live exports and had already passed two readings in the Commons, and instead have said that its contents will be put forward in separate bills later in this Parliament. This is a long-standing commitment which was advanced as one benefit of Brexit, and it featured prominently in the Government Animal Welfare Plan only last year. Campaigners are incensed, and I've got a strong interview on it which will probably be in tomorrow's Farming Today.
Meanwhile, the Animal Sentience Committee has finally been set up, after a year's delay - this is a genuinely positive measure with five independent experts monitoring what the Government does on animal welfare. To be fair, it's not often that Governments set up bodies to challenge Ministers, and they deserve credit for it
Out of curiousity why have they dropped it? I can't imagine that most in the uk would be particularly incensed by its passing and would welcome it.
It was introduced by a Defra team much more interested in animal welfare (under Johnson). The current team seem to feel it's a distraction. The Minister complained that the Bill had attracted too many Labour amendments and said it was therefore Labour's fault.
Note immigration has fallen below 100, 000 for EU net immigration post Brexit, it is non-EU immigration where it has reason substantially to now over 500,000. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65669832
"Note immigration has fallen below 100, 000 for EU net immigration post Brexit, it is non-EU immigration where it has risen substantially to now over 500,000".
Remain should have put that on the side of a bus.
It couldn't have done pre referendum. It is Brexit and the end of EU free movement that has reduced net EU immigration.
Though I take the view it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on Eastern European migration for 7 years in 2004 like Germany that won it for Leave. Had he done so it would probably have been Remain 52% Leave 48% rather than the reverse
It's ok - you are on the right side of history on this one. Sometimes it is worth being on a particular side just because of who is on the other side.
Despite all the PB Leavers falling over themselves to say how much they welcome immigration, nevertheless they hitched their trailer to quite a racist undertaking in the campaigns to leave the EU.
The official Vote Leave campaign made a point, quite a good one, that by controlling immigration we could end discrimination against non-Europeans and increase non-EU migration.
Which is exactly what has happened.
Yes Farage and co may have been racist shitbags, but so what? If a racist told you not to cross a level crossing while the red lights were flashing and a train was approaching would you say "well if you're telling me not to, I better had"?
Ending "discrimination" by the EU? That's like saying that the UK discriminates in favour of existing subjects of HMtK when it comes to passports, etc.
Yes, end discrimination by the EU.
If you want the EU to be a single country, then that's a perfectly legitimate argument to make, but its not what a majority of this country ever wanted. And unless or until the EU becomes a single nation then when it comes to immigration into this country it was absolutely extremely discriminatory in the past with citizens of some other countries able to move here freely and draconian restrictions on non-EU migrants.
By having a level playing field people are treated more fairly regardless of nationality.
Since I oppose discrimination, I think a level playing field is a good thing.
False dichotomy. Allowing freedom of movement between given geographies is not EITHER a function of a single state OR discriminatory. There are sound reasons why different pairs of countries have different migration statuses, which are sometimes asymmetrical. A lot could depend on the level of economic integration between the countries. The EU's single-market approach requires freedom of movement of labour for citizens of member countries for perfectly sound reasons. It acknowledges that labour is part of that market.
Accusations of racism on here to support a particular point of view are risible.
Australia and NZ have FOM. Is that racist against countries with whom there is no similar arrangement? Only an utter nut job would argue thus.
It is also not necessarily racist to prefer lower immigration. Let us be honest that the volumes of migration since the late 90s have been unprecedentedly massive.
It’s true that Nigel Farage in particular flirted with racist tropes during the Brexit campaign, and xenophobia of various types, including outright racism, likely swung the vote to Brexit.
Brexiters have to live with that.
One of the biggest and most racist Leave lies was that Turkey would be imminently joining the EU and there’d be nothing we could do to stop that or Turkish citizens flooding into the country.
Maybe the “Turkey-EU Accession Conference” the week before the vote, might have influenced that particular campaign?
Note immigration has fallen below 100, 000 for EU net immigration post Brexit, it is non-EU immigration where it has reason substantially to now over 500,000. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65669832
"Note immigration has fallen below 100, 000 for EU net immigration post Brexit, it is non-EU immigration where it has risen substantially to now over 500,000".
Remain should have put that on the side of a bus.
It couldn't have done pre referendum. It is Brexit and the end of EU free movement that has reduced net EU immigration.
Though I take the view it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on Eastern European migration for 7 years in 2004 like Germany that won it for Leave. Had he done so it would probably have been Remain 52% Leave 48% rather than the reverse
I don't think this is true. The wave of migration into Europe in 2015 was a much bigger factor than migration within the EU after expansion.
It was Blair's failure to impose transition controls from 2004 that led to the real UKIP surge and pressure for the EU referendum though.
UKIP went from just 6% in the 1999 EU Parliament elections in the UK to 15% in 2004, 16% in 2009 and then topped the poll in 2014 with 26%. Pressure of leaking Tory votes to UKIP then forced Cameron as PM to concede the promise of an EU referendum if the Tories won a majority in 2015
So UK's initial polling surge predated EU expansion and they made no progress in the subsequent 5 years when net EU migration spiked?
UKIP's initial polling surge was 2004-2009 ie exactly when transition controls were not imposed
1999-2004 predates EU expansion though and that's when they went from also-rans to 15%.
Of course a big booster to their campaign was the fact the EU elections became proportional representation - something long desired by racist shitbag parties of all stripes as it makes it much easier for them to get elected. Which is why the EU elections had significant numbers of racist shitbags elected but Parliament does not.
I'm curious if @TOPPING will answer as to whether everyone who voted Yes to AV in 2011 as Farage wanted and Farage campaigned in favour of was voting with and for racist shitbags? As that's his logic.
By all means continue with the fiction that the referendum was fought over widget regulations. It was fought over immigration. I don't think the 2011 AV vote likewise had immigration at its core.
So the 17 million people who voted to Leave were all racists, and yet the UK is consistently one of the least racist countries in the world. Im not following your logic.
You can want immigration to be reduced and not be a racist. But the referendum was fought over immigration. That will necessarily include a lot of racist shitbags. No one on PB, of course.
As they say, not everyone who voted Leave was a racist, while everyone who was a racist voted Leave.
No racists voted Remain?
That's troll logic.
I'm ignoring rounding errors.
There's always been an element in fascism that favours the unity of white European peoples. There have always been elements of Welsh, Irish, and Scottish nationalism that have a strong dislike of the English, and others they deem interlopers. And, among left wing Remain voters, there would certainly have been some who dislike Jews. The NUS, in particular, has a problem with Jewish students.
Point of order, there's really nothing in the history of fascism that points to the idea of the unity of white Europeans. Fascism is ultranationalist. Its biggest hate figures were mostly other white people, especially those within the areas the party saw as "its" territory but who did not conform to the party's ideal. This was as much ideological as racial or nationalistic. The first approximation of "who did the fascists go after?" is: socialists. Of course, the Nazis had a particular proclivity for anti-Semitism, but that wasn't much of a feature of Italian fascism for most of its time in power.
Fascism is as much anti-socialist as it is racist, and it's very racist even against other white Europeans. They even kinda hated the fascists in other countries!
Note immigration has fallen below 100, 000 for EU net immigration post Brexit, it is non-EU immigration where it has reason substantially to now over 500,000. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65669832
"Note immigration has fallen below 100, 000 for EU net immigration post Brexit, it is non-EU immigration where it has risen substantially to now over 500,000".
Remain should have put that on the side of a bus.
It couldn't have done pre referendum. It is Brexit and the end of EU free movement that has reduced net EU immigration.
Though I take the view it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on Eastern European migration for 7 years in 2004 like Germany that won it for Leave. Had he done so it would probably have been Remain 52% Leave 48% rather than the reverse
I don't think this is true. The wave of migration into Europe in 2015 was a much bigger factor than migration within the EU after expansion.
It was Blair's failure to impose transition controls from 2004 that led to the real UKIP surge and pressure for the EU referendum though.
UKIP went from just 6% in the 1999 EU Parliament elections in the UK to 15% in 2004, 16% in 2009 and then topped the poll in 2014 with 26%. Pressure of leaking Tory votes to UKIP then forced Cameron as PM to concede the promise of an EU referendum if the Tories won a majority in 2015
So UK's initial polling surge predated EU expansion and they made no progress in the subsequent 5 years when net EU migration spiked?
UKIP's initial polling surge was 2004-2009 ie exactly when transition controls were not imposed
1999-2004 predates EU expansion though and that's when they went from also-rans to 15%.
Of course a big booster to their campaign was the fact the EU elections became proportional representation - something long desired by racist shitbag parties of all stripes as it makes it much easier for them to get elected. Which is why the EU elections had significant numbers of racist shitbags elected but Parliament does not.
I'm curious if @TOPPING will answer as to whether everyone who voted Yes to AV in 2011 as Farage wanted and Farage campaigned in favour of was voting with and for racist shitbags? As that's his logic.
By all means continue with the fiction that the referendum was fought over widget regulations. It was fought over immigration. I don't think the 2011 AV vote likewise had immigration at its core.
So the 17 million people who voted to Leave were all racists, and yet the UK is consistently one of the least racist countries in the world. Im not following your logic.
You can want immigration to be reduced and not be a racist. But the referendum was fought over immigration. That will necessarily include a lot of racist shitbags. No one on PB, of course.
As they say, not everyone who voted Leave was a racist, while everyone who was a racist voted Leave.
No racists in the Labour party of course (at least not NOW Starmer has kicked them out). How many racists do you think there are in the UK?
Hierarchy of Racism exits in the Labour Party under SKS according to the Lawyer SKS engaged to investigate it.
Under Jezza there was less AS than in the General Population according to the Parliamentary report
But Hey you are not interested either in facts or whether SKS is a Racist as Martin Forde says
Note immigration has fallen below 100, 000 for EU net immigration post Brexit, it is non-EU immigration where it has reason substantially to now over 500,000. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65669832
"Note immigration has fallen below 100, 000 for EU net immigration post Brexit, it is non-EU immigration where it has risen substantially to now over 500,000".
Remain should have put that on the side of a bus.
It couldn't have done pre referendum. It is Brexit and the end of EU free movement that has reduced net EU immigration.
Though I take the view it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on Eastern European migration for 7 years in 2004 like Germany that won it for Leave. Had he done so it would probably have been Remain 52% Leave 48% rather than the reverse
It's ok - you are on the right side of history on this one. Sometimes it is worth being on a particular side just because of who is on the other side.
Despite all the PB Leavers falling over themselves to say how much they welcome immigration, nevertheless they hitched their trailer to quite a racist undertaking in the campaigns to leave the EU.
The official Vote Leave campaign made a point, quite a good one, that by controlling immigration we could end discrimination against non-Europeans and increase non-EU migration.
Which is exactly what has happened.
Yes Farage and co may have been racist shitbags, but so what? If a racist told you not to cross a level crossing while the red lights were flashing and a train was approaching would you say "well if you're telling me not to, I better had"?
Ending "discrimination" by the EU? That's like saying that the UK discriminates in favour of existing subjects of HMtK when it comes to passports, etc.
Yes, end discrimination by the EU.
If you want the EU to be a single country, then that's a perfectly legitimate argument to make, but its not what a majority of this country ever wanted. And unless or until the EU becomes a single nation then when it comes to immigration into this country it was absolutely extremely discriminatory in the past with citizens of some other countries able to move here freely and draconian restrictions on non-EU migrants.
By having a level playing field people are treated more fairly regardless of nationality.
Since I oppose discrimination, I think a level playing field is a good thing.
False dichotomy. Allowing freedom of movement between given geographies is not EITHER a function of a single state OR discriminatory. There are sound reasons why different pairs of countries have different migration statuses, which are sometimes asymmetrical. A lot could depend on the level of economic integration between the countries. The EU's single-market approach requires freedom of movement of labour for citizens of member countries for perfectly sound reasons. It acknowledges that labour is part of that market.
Accusations of racism on here to support a particular point of view are risible.
Australia and NZ have FOM. Is that racist against countries with whom there is no similar arrangement? Only an utter nut job would argue thus.
It is also not necessarily racist to prefer lower immigration. Let us be honest that the volumes of migration since the late 90s have been unprecedentedly massive.
It’s true that Nigel Farage in particular flirted with racist tropes during the Brexit campaign, and xenophobia of various types, including outright racism, likely swung the vote to Brexit.
Brexiters have to live with that.
One of the biggest and most racist Leave lies was that Turkey would be imminently joining the EU and there’d be nothing we could do to stop that or Turkish citizens flooding into the country.
Maybe the “Turkey-EU Accession Conference” the week before the vote, might have influenced that particular campaign?
Note immigration has fallen below 100, 000 for EU net immigration post Brexit, it is non-EU immigration where it has reason substantially to now over 500,000. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65669832
"Note immigration has fallen below 100, 000 for EU net immigration post Brexit, it is non-EU immigration where it has risen substantially to now over 500,000".
Remain should have put that on the side of a bus.
It couldn't have done pre referendum. It is Brexit and the end of EU free movement that has reduced net EU immigration.
Though I take the view it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on Eastern European migration for 7 years in 2004 like Germany that won it for Leave. Had he done so it would probably have been Remain 52% Leave 48% rather than the reverse
It's ok - you are on the right side of history on this one. Sometimes it is worth being on a particular side just because of who is on the other side.
Despite all the PB Leavers falling over themselves to say how much they welcome immigration, nevertheless they hitched their trailer to quite a racist undertaking in the campaigns to leave the EU.
The official Vote Leave campaign made a point, quite a good one, that by controlling immigration we could end discrimination against non-Europeans and increase non-EU migration.
Which is exactly what has happened.
Yes Farage and co may have been racist shitbags, but so what? If a racist told you not to cross a level crossing while the red lights were flashing and a train was approaching would you say "well if you're telling me not to, I better had"?
Ending "discrimination" by the EU? That's like saying that the UK discriminates in favour of existing subjects of HMtK when it comes to passports, etc.
Yes, end discrimination by the EU.
If you want the EU to be a single country, then that's a perfectly legitimate argument to make, but its not what a majority of this country ever wanted. And unless or until the EU becomes a single nation then when it comes to immigration into this country it was absolutely extremely discriminatory in the past with citizens of some other countries able to move here freely and draconian restrictions on non-EU migrants.
By having a level playing field people are treated more fairly regardless of nationality.
Since I oppose discrimination, I think a level playing field is a good thing.
False dichotomy. Allowing freedom of movement between given geographies is not EITHER a function of a single state OR discriminatory. There are sound reasons why different pairs of countries have different migration statuses, which are sometimes asymmetrical. A lot could depend on the level of economic integration between the countries. The EU's single-market approach requires freedom of movement of labour for citizens of member countries for perfectly sound reasons. It acknowledges that labour is part of that market.
Accusations of racism on here to support a particular point of view are risible.
Australia and NZ have FOM. Is that racist against countries with whom there is no similar arrangement? Only an utter nut job would argue thus.
It is also not necessarily racist to prefer lower immigration. Let us be honest that the volumes of migration since the late 90s have been unprecedentedly massive.
It’s true that Nigel Farage in particular flirted with racist tropes during the Brexit campaign, and xenophobia of various types, including outright racism, likely swung the vote to Brexit.
Brexiters have to live with that.
One of the biggest and most racist Leave lies was that Turkey would be imminently joining the EU and there’d be nothing we could do to stop that or Turkish citizens flooding into the country.
Maybe the “Turkey-EU Accession Conference” the week before the vote, might have influenced that particular campaign?
The ECB is going to have to up the pay of England players significantly.
England players salaries have historically always been very low compared to the revenue generated - because you have no choice which country you play for - so the ECB could get away with underpaying.
ECB gets £220m per year from Sky - vast majority of that relates to international cricket. But how much goes to England players? I would say about £20m.
In most professional sports the players get well over 50% of the revenue generated.
Whereas the ECB has historically spent all kinds of money on various projects, admin etc (plus in fairness supporting the counties).
Going forward this will have to change. They'll need to move top England players on to say £2m+ and everyone playing regularly will need to be on £1m+. So probably £50m to the players (allowing for all formats you are probably looking at about 30-35 England players).
But the ECB can do that if they want to. They will just have to get real and take on the competition.
That will work in the short-term, but unlike, say, the IPL, or the EPL, the ECB only pay the players for one team, and they'll make sod all from Sky if they don't have decent quality opponents to play international cricket against.
How do they schedule 14 Tests a year when they only have Australia, India and Pakistan to play (and the latter only because the IPL bans their players)?
South Africa, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, West Indies (and Ireland) may have a view on playing tests...
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
The ECB is going to have to up the pay of England players significantly.
England players salaries have historically always been very low compared to the revenue generated - because you have no choice which country you play for - so the ECB could get away with underpaying.
ECB gets £220m per year from Sky - vast majority of that relates to international cricket. But how much goes to England players? I would say about £20m.
In most professional sports the players get well over 50% of the revenue generated.
Whereas the ECB has historically spent all kinds of money on various projects, admin etc (plus in fairness supporting the counties).
Going forward this will have to change. They'll need to move top England players on to say £2m+ and everyone playing regularly will need to be on £1m+. So probably £50m to the players (allowing for all formats you are probably looking at about 30-35 England players).
But the ECB can do that if they want to. They will just have to get real and take on the competition.
Yes and no. Test cricket is still the pinnacle of the game, and the best players want to prove themselves at that level. This has been the causes of most of the issues with IPL etc - if players didn't care about test cricket they would have just gone for the money, but they mostly have tried to balance things.
I'm also not sure that the vast majority is about test cricket. Sky shows the T20 Blast through the summer, and also County Champs games too. I get that the international games are huge, but Sky are buying the whole package, not just internationals.
I think the only County Championship match Sky have shown so far this season was Surrey vs Middlesex. If Sky really had paid a lot of money for the County Championship then it's a bit odd I've been able to see all the other matches streamed for free on YouTube.
Maybe - but I've watched the blast already this year, and I believe Sky also show the hundred, bastard thing that it is.
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Exactly what Brexit allows us to do!
Yes let’s get phone masts built quickly and everywhere. Planning permission should be totally ignored for key infrastructure.
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Exactly what Brexit allows us to do!
Yes let’s get phone masts built quickly and everywhere. Planning permission should be totally ignored for key infrastructure.
Why are you so obsessed with phone masts? Its about 30% of your (multitudinous) posts... Do you work for a company that installs phone masts?
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Exactly what Brexit allows us to do!
Yes let’s get phone masts built quickly and everywhere. Planning permission should be totally ignored for key infrastructure.
Why are you so obsessed with phone masts? Its about 30% of your (multitudinous) posts... Do you work for a company that installs phone masts?
Because phone coverage matters to my job. And it is inadequate because people reject these masts because they “cause cancer”.
As for what I post about, why don’t you skip over? Mate.
Lots of action on the animal welfare front today. The Government has dropped its own Kept Animals Bill, which would have banned live exports and had already passed two readings in the Commons, and instead have said that its contents will be put forward in separate bills later in this Parliament. This is a long-standing commitment which was advanced as one benefit of Brexit, and it featured prominently in the Government Animal Welfare Plan only last year. Campaigners are incensed, and I've got a strong interview on it which will probably be in tomorrow's Farming Today.
Meanwhile, the Animal Sentience Committee has finally been set up, after a year's delay - this is a genuinely positive measure with five independent experts monitoring what the Government does on animal welfare. To be fair, it's not often that Governments set up bodies to challenge Ministers, and they deserve credit for it
There isn’t that much time left in Parliament. Is this another broken Tory / Brexit promise?
Yes, probably, for exactly that reason (lack of time in this Parliament). But I'll be pleased to be proved wrong.
This is from The Guardian Live Blog:
"However, in the Commons this afternoon the environment minister, Mark Spencer, confirmed the legislation would be scrapped. He said that was happening because Labour was determined to widen the scope of the bill “far beyond the original commitments in the manifesto”.
Some Tories feared the bill could have been used to argue for curbs on hunting and farming."
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Exactly what Brexit allows us to do!
Yes let’s get phone masts built quickly and everywhere. Planning permission should be totally ignored for key infrastructure.
Why are you so obsessed with phone masts? Its about 30% of your (multitudinous) posts... Do you work for a company that installs phone masts?
Because phone coverage matters to my job. And it is inadequate because people reject these masts because they “cause cancer”.
As for what I post about, why don’t you skip over? Mate.
Where is there not enough coverage? Genuinely? Surely the issues are in remote rural areas?
I agree with you about the idiots who believe they cause cancer.
Lots of action on the animal welfare front today. The Government has dropped its own Kept Animals Bill, which would have banned live exports and had already passed two readings in the Commons, and instead have said that its contents will be put forward in separate bills later in this Parliament. This is a long-standing commitment which was advanced as one benefit of Brexit, and it featured prominently in the Government Animal Welfare Plan only last year. Campaigners are incensed, and I've got a strong interview on it which will probably be in tomorrow's Farming Today.
Meanwhile, the Animal Sentience Committee has finally been set up, after a year's delay - this is a genuinely positive measure with five independent experts monitoring what the Government does on animal welfare. To be fair, it's not often that Governments set up bodies to challenge Ministers, and they deserve credit for it
There isn’t that much time left in Parliament. Is this another broken Tory / Brexit promise?
Yes, probably, for exactly that reason (lack of time in this Parliament). But I'll be pleased to be proved wrong.
This is from The Guardian Live Blog:
"However, in the Commons this afternoon the environment minister, Mark Spencer, confirmed the legislation would be scrapped. He said that was happening because Labour was determined to widen the scope of the bill “far beyond the original commitments in the manifesto”.
Some Tories feared the bill could have been used to argue for curbs on hunting and farming."
Bizarre. They are in a position to vote down any amendment. These people think you are all stupid.
The ECB is going to have to up the pay of England players significantly.
England players salaries have historically always been very low compared to the revenue generated - because you have no choice which country you play for - so the ECB could get away with underpaying.
ECB gets £220m per year from Sky - vast majority of that relates to international cricket. But how much goes to England players? I would say about £20m.
In most professional sports the players get well over 50% of the revenue generated.
Whereas the ECB has historically spent all kinds of money on various projects, admin etc (plus in fairness supporting the counties).
Going forward this will have to change. They'll need to move top England players on to say £2m+ and everyone playing regularly will need to be on £1m+. So probably £50m to the players (allowing for all formats you are probably looking at about 30-35 England players).
But the ECB can do that if they want to. They will just have to get real and take on the competition.
That will work in the short-term, but unlike, say, the IPL, or the EPL, the ECB only pay the players for one team, and they'll make sod all from Sky if they don't have decent quality opponents to play international cricket against.
How do they schedule 14 Tests a year when they only have Australia, India and Pakistan to play (and the latter only because the IPL bans their players)?
South Africa, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, West Indies (and Ireland) may have a view on playing tests...
The South African board is so constrained for cash that they've sold their domestic T20 competition to the IPL and it's been widely reported that their top players are unhappy about the minimal number of Tests scheduled for the next few years - the board can't afford to play anymore.
The West Indies and Sri Lanka are surely in the same sort of position, and New Zealand won't be far behind. The Ireland cricket board have been very candid that they lose money when they put on Test matches.
The future is of ever fewer Test matches and that's a major threat to the ECB's business model. I'm kinda hoping that India will defeat Australia and win the World Test Championship, and that will manage to win more Indian attention for Test matches, and so even up the financial advantage T20 currently has. But it's a tenuous hope.
Why? The government can (easily) pass legislation. No requirement for an election for nearly 2 years.
Because it's tired, lost, and hated. Most people want it to fuck off.
Most people wanted them to do that since 2010, if you take the polling data. Its shouting at the moon. There is a sad, pathetic poster in a window near my home, from a couple of years ago. "General Election Now!" screams the headline. I might as well put up a poster demanding "free ferrets for all".
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Exactly what Brexit allows us to do!
Yes let’s get phone masts built quickly and everywhere. Planning permission should be totally ignored for key infrastructure.
Why are you so obsessed with phone masts? Its about 30% of your (multitudinous) posts... Do you work for a company that installs phone masts?
Because phone coverage matters to my job. And it is inadequate because people reject these masts because they “cause cancer”.
As for what I post about, why don’t you skip over? Mate.
Where is there not enough coverage? Genuinely? Surely the issues are in remote rural areas?
I agree with you about the idiots who believe they cause cancer.
And I do a lot of work in remote rural areas. Coverage should be available everywhere as a human right. We want to build, but we are prevented because of planning permission constraints. I hope Labour will change this but I am doubtful.
The ECB is going to have to up the pay of England players significantly.
England players salaries have historically always been very low compared to the revenue generated - because you have no choice which country you play for - so the ECB could get away with underpaying.
ECB gets £220m per year from Sky - vast majority of that relates to international cricket. But how much goes to England players? I would say about £20m.
In most professional sports the players get well over 50% of the revenue generated.
Whereas the ECB has historically spent all kinds of money on various projects, admin etc (plus in fairness supporting the counties).
Going forward this will have to change. They'll need to move top England players on to say £2m+ and everyone playing regularly will need to be on £1m+. So probably £50m to the players (allowing for all formats you are probably looking at about 30-35 England players).
But the ECB can do that if they want to. They will just have to get real and take on the competition.
That will work in the short-term, but unlike, say, the IPL, or the EPL, the ECB only pay the players for one team, and they'll make sod all from Sky if they don't have decent quality opponents to play international cricket against.
How do they schedule 14 Tests a year when they only have Australia, India and Pakistan to play (and the latter only because the IPL bans their players)?
South Africa, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, West Indies (and Ireland) may have a view on playing tests...
The South African board is so constrained for cash that they've sold their domestic T20 competition to the IPL and it's been widely reported that their top players are unhappy about the minimal number of Tests scheduled for the next few years - the board can't afford to play anymore.
The West Indies and Sri Lanka are surely in the same sort of position, and New Zealand won't be far behind. The Ireland cricket board have been very candid that they lose money when they put on Test matches.
The future is of ever fewer Test matches and that's a major threat to the ECB's business model. I'm kinda hoping that India will defeat Australia and win the World Test Championship, and that will manage to win more Indian attention for Test matches, and so even up the financial advantage T20 currently has. But it's a tenuous hope.
The death of test cricket has been around the corner for decades. I'm not convinced it will die simply because the best cricketers know that its the best test of their ability. Make a double hundred at Lords in a test and you are immortal. Slog another few sixes in yet another slogfest and its forgotten by the next match.
Note immigration has fallen below 100, 000 for EU net immigration post Brexit, it is non-EU immigration where it has reason substantially to now over 500,000. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65669832
"Note immigration has fallen below 100, 000 for EU net immigration post Brexit, it is non-EU immigration where it has risen substantially to now over 500,000".
Remain should have put that on the side of a bus.
It couldn't have done pre referendum. It is Brexit and the end of EU free movement that has reduced net EU immigration.
Though I take the view it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on Eastern European migration for 7 years in 2004 like Germany that won it for Leave. Had he done so it would probably have been Remain 52% Leave 48% rather than the reverse
I don't think this is true. The wave of migration into Europe in 2015 was a much bigger factor than migration within the EU after expansion.
It was Blair's failure to impose transition controls from 2004 that led to the real UKIP surge and pressure for the EU referendum though.
UKIP went from just 6% in the 1999 EU Parliament elections in the UK to 15% in 2004, 16% in 2009 and then topped the poll in 2014 with 26%. Pressure of leaking Tory votes to UKIP then forced Cameron as PM to concede the promise of an EU referendum if the Tories won a majority in 2015
So UK's initial polling surge predated EU expansion and they made no progress in the subsequent 5 years when net EU migration spiked?
UKIP's initial polling surge was 2004-2009 ie exactly when transition controls were not imposed
1999-2004 predates EU expansion though and that's when they went from also-rans to 15%.
Of course a big booster to their campaign was the fact the EU elections became proportional representation - something long desired by racist shitbag parties of all stripes as it makes it much easier for them to get elected. Which is why the EU elections had significant numbers of racist shitbags elected but Parliament does not.
I'm curious if @TOPPING will answer as to whether everyone who voted Yes to AV in 2011 as Farage wanted and Farage campaigned in favour of was voting with and for racist shitbags? As that's his logic.
By all means continue with the fiction that the referendum was fought over widget regulations. It was fought over immigration. I don't think the 2011 AV vote likewise had immigration at its core.
So the 17 million people who voted to Leave were all racists, and yet the UK is consistently one of the least racist countries in the world. Im not following your logic.
You can want immigration to be reduced and not be a racist. But the referendum was fought over immigration. That will necessarily include a lot of racist shitbags. No one on PB, of course.
As they say, not everyone who voted Leave was a racist, while everyone who was a racist voted Leave.
No racists voted Remain?
That's troll logic.
I'm ignoring rounding errors.
There's always been an element in fascism that favours the unity of white European peoples. There have always been elements of Welsh, Irish, and Scottish nationalism that have a strong dislike of the English, and others they deem interlopers. And, among left wing Remain voters, there would certainly have been some who dislike Jews. The NUS, in particular, has a problem with Jewish students.
Point of order, there's really nothing in the history of fascism that points to the idea of the unity of white Europeans. Fascism is ultranationalist. Its biggest hate figures were mostly other white people, especially those within the areas the party saw as "its" territory but who did not conform to the party's ideal. This was as much ideological as racial or nationalistic. The first approximation of "who did the fascists go after?" is: socialists. Of course, the Nazis had a particular proclivity for anti-Semitism, but that wasn't much of a feature of Italian fascism for most of its time in power.
Fascism is as much anti-socialist as it is racist, and it's very racist even against other white Europeans. They even kinda hated the fascists in other countries!
A clear example being Greece under Metaxas, who was basically a fascist - invaded by both Germany and Italy between autumn 1940 and spring 1941.
The ECB is going to have to up the pay of England players significantly.
England players salaries have historically always been very low compared to the revenue generated - because you have no choice which country you play for - so the ECB could get away with underpaying.
ECB gets £220m per year from Sky - vast majority of that relates to international cricket. But how much goes to England players? I would say about £20m.
In most professional sports the players get well over 50% of the revenue generated.
Whereas the ECB has historically spent all kinds of money on various projects, admin etc (plus in fairness supporting the counties).
Going forward this will have to change. They'll need to move top England players on to say £2m+ and everyone playing regularly will need to be on £1m+. So probably £50m to the players (allowing for all formats you are probably looking at about 30-35 England players).
But the ECB can do that if they want to. They will just have to get real and take on the competition.
That will work in the short-term, but unlike, say, the IPL, or the EPL, the ECB only pay the players for one team, and they'll make sod all from Sky if they don't have decent quality opponents to play international cricket against.
How do they schedule 14 Tests a year when they only have Australia, India and Pakistan to play (and the latter only because the IPL bans their players)?
South Africa, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, West Indies (and Ireland) may have a view on playing tests...
The South African board is so constrained for cash that they've sold their domestic T20 competition to the IPL and it's been widely reported that their top players are unhappy about the minimal number of Tests scheduled for the next few years - the board can't afford to play anymore.
The West Indies and Sri Lanka are surely in the same sort of position, and New Zealand won't be far behind. The Ireland cricket board have been very candid that they lose money when they put on Test matches.
The future is of ever fewer Test matches and that's a major threat to the ECB's business model. I'm kinda hoping that India will defeat Australia and win the World Test Championship, and that will manage to win more Indian attention for Test matches, and so even up the financial advantage T20 currently has. But it's a tenuous hope.
The death of test cricket has been around the corner for decades. I'm not convinced it will die simply because the best cricketers know that its the best test of their ability. Make a double hundred at Lords in a test and you are immortal. Slog another few sixes in yet another slogfest and its forgotten by the next match.
Let’s hope you’re right. Cricketers all want their name on those historic boards in the Long Room, don’t they?
The ECB is going to have to up the pay of England players significantly.
England players salaries have historically always been very low compared to the revenue generated - because you have no choice which country you play for - so the ECB could get away with underpaying.
ECB gets £220m per year from Sky - vast majority of that relates to international cricket. But how much goes to England players? I would say about £20m.
In most professional sports the players get well over 50% of the revenue generated.
Whereas the ECB has historically spent all kinds of money on various projects, admin etc (plus in fairness supporting the counties).
Going forward this will have to change. They'll need to move top England players on to say £2m+ and everyone playing regularly will need to be on £1m+. So probably £50m to the players (allowing for all formats you are probably looking at about 30-35 England players).
But the ECB can do that if they want to. They will just have to get real and take on the competition.
That will work in the short-term, but unlike, say, the IPL, or the EPL, the ECB only pay the players for one team, and they'll make sod all from Sky if they don't have decent quality opponents to play international cricket against.
How do they schedule 14 Tests a year when they only have Australia, India and Pakistan to play (and the latter only because the IPL bans their players)?
South Africa, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, West Indies (and Ireland) may have a view on playing tests...
The South African board is so constrained for cash that they've sold their domestic T20 competition to the IPL and it's been widely reported that their top players are unhappy about the minimal number of Tests scheduled for the next few years - the board can't afford to play anymore.
The West Indies and Sri Lanka are surely in the same sort of position, and New Zealand won't be far behind. The Ireland cricket board have been very candid that they lose money when they put on Test matches.
The future is of ever fewer Test matches and that's a major threat to the ECB's business model. I'm kinda hoping that India will defeat Australia and win the World Test Championship, and that will manage to win more Indian attention for Test matches, and so even up the financial advantage T20 currently has. But it's a tenuous hope.
The death of test cricket has been around the corner for decades. I'm not convinced it will die simply because the best cricketers know that its the best test of their ability. Make a double hundred at Lords in a test and you are immortal. Slog another few sixes in yet another slogfest and its forgotten by the next match.
I'm not saying that it's going to die as such, but the franchise leagues look like they will create a rebalancing of the game so that international matches take up as much time as they do in football. Sure, Test cricket will still be played. The players will still say that it's the pinnacle of their career. But they will be lucky to play more than a couple of Test matches a year.
A Nazi-themed poster of skinheads displaying swastikas was fixed to a wall by police officers working in a “racist” unit at the Dorset force, a misconduct hearing was told.
One PC allegedly called a black motorist a “c**n” while on duty. Another is accused of humiliating a junior colleague to the point where he felt suicidal.
Inspector Nicholas Mantle, PC Mark Jordan-Gill, PC Michael Lowther, PC Matthew Young and PC Paul Perdrisat allegedly fostered a culture of “racist, misogynistic and homophobic’ behaviour while serving in Dorset police’s force support group based in Bournemouth, the hearing was told.
The unit deals with outbreaks of public disorder in the town centre.
They are also accused of posting pornographic, misogynistic and racist messages in a WhatsApp group called “The Real FSG”. Four officers attended the hearing but all five deny the allegations of gross misconduct.
The ECB is going to have to up the pay of England players significantly.
England players salaries have historically always been very low compared to the revenue generated - because you have no choice which country you play for - so the ECB could get away with underpaying.
ECB gets £220m per year from Sky - vast majority of that relates to international cricket. But how much goes to England players? I would say about £20m.
In most professional sports the players get well over 50% of the revenue generated.
Whereas the ECB has historically spent all kinds of money on various projects, admin etc (plus in fairness supporting the counties).
Going forward this will have to change. They'll need to move top England players on to say £2m+ and everyone playing regularly will need to be on £1m+. So probably £50m to the players (allowing for all formats you are probably looking at about 30-35 England players).
But the ECB can do that if they want to. They will just have to get real and take on the competition.
That will work in the short-term, but unlike, say, the IPL, or the EPL, the ECB only pay the players for one team, and they'll make sod all from Sky if they don't have decent quality opponents to play international cricket against.
How do they schedule 14 Tests a year when they only have Australia, India and Pakistan to play (and the latter only because the IPL bans their players)?
South Africa, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, West Indies (and Ireland) may have a view on playing tests...
The South African board is so constrained for cash that they've sold their domestic T20 competition to the IPL and it's been widely reported that their top players are unhappy about the minimal number of Tests scheduled for the next few years - the board can't afford to play anymore.
The West Indies and Sri Lanka are surely in the same sort of position, and New Zealand won't be far behind. The Ireland cricket board have been very candid that they lose money when they put on Test matches.
The future is of ever fewer Test matches and that's a major threat to the ECB's business model. I'm kinda hoping that India will defeat Australia and win the World Test Championship, and that will manage to win more Indian attention for Test matches, and so even up the financial advantage T20 currently has. But it's a tenuous hope.
The death of test cricket has been around the corner for decades. I'm not convinced it will die simply because the best cricketers know that its the best test of their ability. Make a double hundred at Lords in a test and you are immortal. Slog another few sixes in yet another slogfest and its forgotten by the next match.
Let’s hope you’re right. Cricketers all want their name on those historic boards in the Long Room, don’t they?
The way the IPL owners talk about it there will be a few Test matches at Lords each year in a "window" in the calendar for Test cricket, so everyone will still get their chance to get on those boards, but it's not going to be anything like the status quo.
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Exactly what Brexit allows us to do!
Yes let’s get phone masts built quickly and everywhere. Planning permission should be totally ignored for key infrastructure.
Another one who has no idea what the purpose of planning permission is.
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Shit. You would hope that senior Labour MPs would have some concept of what planning permisison is and the effect it has on infrastructure and housebuilding (clue - fuck all). Another one looking for cheap points to score that will have absolutely no effect on how quickly things get built.
Generally speaking, when I don't share the joy that someone else takes in a particular pastime, I manage to appreciate the pleasure that they feel, and marvel at the variety of ways in which humans amuse themselves.
Why be a great big fun sponge and moan about someone else's passion?
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Exactly what Brexit allows us to do!
Yes let’s get phone masts built quickly and everywhere. Planning permission should be totally ignored for key infrastructure.
Another one who has no idea what the purpose of planning permission is.
Hi. The mast they wanted to build next to my flat was rejected because it causes cancer. I read the planning documents.
Generally speaking, when I don't share the joy that someone else takes in a particular pastime, I manage to appreciate the pleasure that they feel, and marvel at the variety of ways in which humans amuse themselves.
Why be a great big fun sponge and moan about someone else's passion?
I love cricket. But test matches are not as fun as T20 or one days in my opinion. There is a reason the attendance is so poor.
Generally speaking, when I don't share the joy that someone else takes in a particular pastime, I manage to appreciate the pleasure that they feel, and marvel at the variety of ways in which humans amuse themselves.
Why be a great big fun sponge and moan about someone else's passion?
I see you skipped over the person moaning about my passion above. No problem.
Generally speaking, when I don't share the joy that someone else takes in a particular pastime, I manage to appreciate the pleasure that they feel, and marvel at the variety of ways in which humans amuse themselves.
Why be a great big fun sponge and moan about someone else's passion?
I wanted to install a great big fun sponge next to my flat but it was refused planning permission
Generally speaking, when I don't share the joy that someone else takes in a particular pastime, I manage to appreciate the pleasure that they feel, and marvel at the variety of ways in which humans amuse themselves.
Why be a great big fun sponge and moan about someone else's passion?
I wanted to install a great big fun sponge next to my flat but it was refused planning permission
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Exactly what Brexit allows us to do!
Yes let’s get phone masts built quickly and everywhere. Planning permission should be totally ignored for key infrastructure.
Another one who has no idea what the purpose of planning permission is.
Hi. The mast they wanted to build next to my flat was rejected because it causes cancer. I read the planning documents.
Just as well when you come to resell it, given the number of folk who believe that.
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Exactly what Brexit allows us to do!
Yes let’s get phone masts built quickly and everywhere. Planning permission should be totally ignored for key infrastructure.
Another one who has no idea what the purpose of planning permission is.
Hi. The mast they wanted to build next to my flat was rejected because it causes cancer. I read the planning documents.
No it wasn't. Phone masts and telecomms equipment isn't blockable by council planning. And 'it causes cancer' isn't a valid reason to refuse. You're talking rubbish
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Exactly what Brexit allows us to do!
Yes let’s get phone masts built quickly and everywhere. Planning permission should be totally ignored for key infrastructure.
Another one who has no idea what the purpose of planning permission is.
The planning rules for phone masts are actually very generous compared to other planning applications.
That still doesn't stop people from creating blooming stupid applications though (say by asking for one on the top of a hill in a national park right next to and so visible from another national park)
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Exactly what Brexit allows us to do!
Yes let’s get phone masts built quickly and everywhere. Planning permission should be totally ignored for key infrastructure.
Another one who has no idea what the purpose of planning permission is.
Hi. The mast they wanted to build next to my flat was rejected because it causes cancer. I read the planning documents.
In which case if it was really that important to the phone company they would have gone through the fast track appeal system and got it overturned in less time than it takes to actually put one of the things up. The system recognises that there are idiots in local government and is designed to prevent them holding stuff up. I have been involved in some of these on the side of quarrying companies when spurious claims of archaological significance are made and the record for a turn around was 2 weeks.
Blatently stupid decisions are the easy ones to deal with.
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Exactly what Brexit allows us to do!
Yes let’s get phone masts built quickly and everywhere. Planning permission should be totally ignored for key infrastructure.
Another one who has no idea what the purpose of planning permission is.
The planning rules for phone masts are actually very generous compared to other planning applications.
That still doesn't stop people from creating blooming stupid applications though (say by asking for one on the top of a hill in a national park right next to and so visible from another national park)
Generally speaking, when I don't share the joy that someone else takes in a particular pastime, I manage to appreciate the pleasure that they feel, and marvel at the variety of ways in which humans amuse themselves.
Why be a great big fun sponge and moan about someone else's passion?
I see you skipped over the person moaning about my passion above. No problem.
I'm not a moderator here. I don't have to police everyone's posts to satisfy your notions of equitable treatment.
And, also, the two are different. You were asked a question, which you could answer. You didn't ask me why I found Test cricket enthralling, you simply stated your negative opinion that it was dull, spreading a miasma of negativity.
Generally speaking, when I don't share the joy that someone else takes in a particular pastime, I manage to appreciate the pleasure that they feel, and marvel at the variety of ways in which humans amuse themselves.
Why be a great big fun sponge and moan about someone else's passion?
I love cricket. But test matches are not as fun as T20 or one days in my opinion. There is a reason the attendance is so poor.
The attendance is so poor, that there’s still tens of thousands of tickets left for the Ashes?
Err, nope. Nothing, at all, not one ticket, it all sold out months ago.
Lol. Did they not case the joint, and take a good look both at the gates and the barriers behind them? Oh, and the dozen armed police that are always there.
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Exactly what Brexit allows us to do!
Yes let’s get phone masts built quickly and everywhere. Planning permission should be totally ignored for key infrastructure.
Another one who has no idea what the purpose of planning permission is.
Hi. The mast they wanted to build next to my flat was rejected because it causes cancer. I read the planning documents.
No it wasn't. Phone masts and telecomms equipment isn't blockable by council planning. And 'it causes cancer' isn't a valid reason to refuse. You're talking rubbish
There was a spate of planning applications going to committee and the committee then banning them for stupid reasons.
Don't think many happened before the consequences to the committee members (and council finances) was pointed out.
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Exactly what Brexit allows us to do!
Yes let’s get phone masts built quickly and everywhere. Planning permission should be totally ignored for key infrastructure.
Another one who has no idea what the purpose of planning permission is.
Hi. The mast they wanted to build next to my flat was rejected because it causes cancer. I read the planning documents.
In which case if it was really that important to the phone company they would have gone through the fast track appeal system and got it overturned in less time than it takes to actually put one of the things up. The system recognises that there are idiots in local government and is designed to prevent them holding stuff up. I have been involved in some of these on the side of quarrying companies when spurious claims of archaological significance are made and the record for a turn around was 2 weeks.
Blatently stupid decisions are the easy ones to deal with.
I'd be careful there - quarries are a real specialist niche with incredibly different rules to elsewhere...
Lol. Did they not case the joint, and take a good look both at the gates and the barriers behind them? Oh, and the dozen armed police that are always there.
If it was Liz Truss at the wheel, and Kwasi Kwarteng navigating, there may not have been a tremendous amount of forward planning.
Lots of action on the animal welfare front today. The Government has dropped its own Kept Animals Bill, which would have banned live exports and had already passed two readings in the Commons, and instead have said that its contents will be put forward in separate bills later in this Parliament. This is a long-standing commitment which was advanced as one benefit of Brexit, and it featured prominently in the Government Animal Welfare Plan only last year. Campaigners are incensed, and I've got a strong interview on it which will probably be in tomorrow's Farming Today.
Meanwhile, the Animal Sentience Committee has finally been set up, after a year's delay - this is a genuinely positive measure with five independent experts monitoring what the Government does on animal welfare. To be fair, it's not often that Governments set up bodies to challenge Ministers, and they deserve credit for it
There isn’t that much time left in Parliament. Is this another broken Tory / Brexit promise?
Yes, probably, for exactly that reason (lack of time in this Parliament). But I'll be pleased to be proved wrong.
This is from The Guardian Live Blog:
"However, in the Commons this afternoon the environment minister, Mark Spencer, confirmed the legislation would be scrapped. He said that was happening because Labour was determined to widen the scope of the bill “far beyond the original commitments in the manifesto”.
Some Tories feared the bill could have been used to argue for curbs on hunting and farming."
Yes - but when I last heard, the Government had a majority, and if amendments were put that it doesn't like it could vote them down. The basic problem is that they seem to have lost interest in their own Bill, even though Sunak had said he would be a "champion" for it.
The intention seems to be to start again with a number of single-issue Bills, which might either be Government or Private Members' Bills. That can't happen before November, and as Gardenwalker says there is a question about whether they would run out of time before the election. So the cause is not yet lost, but it's at serious risk.
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Exactly what Brexit allows us to do!
Yes let’s get phone masts built quickly and everywhere. Planning permission should be totally ignored for key infrastructure.
Another one who has no idea what the purpose of planning permission is.
Hi. The mast they wanted to build next to my flat was rejected because it causes cancer. I read the planning documents.
In which case if it was really that important to the phone company they would have gone through the fast track appeal system and got it overturned in less time than it takes to actually put one of the things up. The system recognises that there are idiots in local government and is designed to prevent them holding stuff up. I have been involved in some of these on the side of quarrying companies when spurious claims of archaological significance are made and the record for a turn around was 2 weeks.
Blatently stupid decisions are the easy ones to deal with.
I'd be careful there - quarries are a real specialist niche with incredibly different rules to elsewhere...
True. You have to be really careful with quarries with respect to property rights. You make a hole in the ground, it's yours. You make it wider, it's yours. You make it deeper, it's yours. But as soon as you dig a shaft, it's mine.
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Exactly what Brexit allows us to do!
Yes let’s get phone masts built quickly and everywhere. Planning permission should be totally ignored for key infrastructure.
Another one who has no idea what the purpose of planning permission is.
Hi. The mast they wanted to build next to my flat was rejected because it causes cancer. I read the planning documents.
In which case if it was really that important to the phone company they would have gone through the fast track appeal system and got it overturned in less time than it takes to actually put one of the things up. The system recognises that there are idiots in local government and is designed to prevent them holding stuff up. I have been involved in some of these on the side of quarrying companies when spurious claims of archaological significance are made and the record for a turn around was 2 weeks.
Blatently stupid decisions are the easy ones to deal with.
I'd be careful there - quarries are a real specialist niche with incredibly different rules to elsewhere...
Some of the conditions imposed on quarries are a bit of a pain and often pointless.
Sometimes planning requires restoration to agriculture when it would be far better for biodiversity to leave the quarry there to revegetate on its own. They are often very interesting sites, particularly the limestone quarries west of here.
What usually happens though is that someone sees a big hole in the ground and then wonders what crap they can fill it with.
Lol. Did they not case the joint, and take a good look both at the gates and the barriers behind them? Oh, and the dozen armed police that are always there.
If it was Liz Truss at the wheel, and Kwasi Kwarteng navigating, there may not have been a tremendous amount of forward planning.
Footage of the 'ramming' suggests a careful, cautious driver (other than the crashing bit, obviously!). Rules out T&K
A general point about immigration: The official debate in the US is often dominated by economists who, I think, often miss the importance of character. I know, of course, that assessing character, or even agreeing on what is good character is harder than assessing wealth, or earning potential. But I think we in the US ought to try harder to do that, when deciding who to admit.
Or, if money is all that matters to us, then perhaps we should be open about that, and just auction off a certain number of permits ("green cards" in the US) each year. (Would some libertarians like that? I suspect so.)
Lol. Did they not case the joint, and take a good look both at the gates and the barriers behind them? Oh, and the dozen armed police that are always there.
If it was Liz Truss at the wheel, and Kwasi Kwarteng navigating, there may not have been a tremendous amount of forward planning.
Footage of the 'ramming' suggests a careful, cautious driver (other than the crashing bit, obviously!). Rules out T&K
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Shit. You would hope that senior Labour MPs would have some concept of what planning permisison is and the effect it has on infrastructure and housebuilding (clue - fuck all). Another one looking for cheap points to score that will have absolutely no effect on how quickly things get built.
You're so full of shit that planning permission has fuck all effect on housebuilding. Because you think after 10 years of planning appeals a housebuilder might be able get permission does not mean that it has no impact on the development.
Lol. Did they not case the joint, and take a good look both at the gates and the barriers behind them? Oh, and the dozen armed police that are always there.
If it was Liz Truss at the wheel, and Kwasi Kwarteng navigating, there may not have been a tremendous amount of forward planning.
Footage of the 'ramming' suggests a careful, cautious driver (other than the crashing bit, obviously!). Rules out T&K
Incapacitated or lost driver, rather than anything nefarious. Assuming there’s not a bomb in the car.
Could be someone wanting to make a point without hurting anyone. Could be someone hoping to get shot but not wanting anyone else to be hurt. Any number of possible reasons, wrong to speculate at this stage but it was definitely Braverman.
FPT on the explosion of student accommodation that might be turned into residential flats later I think there is a tax avoidance thing possibly to do with avoiding VAT.
Lol. Did they not case the joint, and take a good look both at the gates and the barriers behind them? Oh, and the dozen armed police that are always there.
If it was Liz Truss at the wheel, and Kwasi Kwarteng navigating, there may not have been a tremendous amount of forward planning.
Footage of the 'ramming' suggests a careful, cautious driver (other than the crashing bit, obviously!). Rules out T&K
Incapacitated or lost driver, rather than anything nefarious. Assuming there’s not a bomb in the car.
Could be someone wanting to make a point without hurting anyone. Could be someone hoping to get shot but not wanting anyone else to be hurt. Any number of possible reasons, wrong to speculate at this stage but it was definitely Braverman.
Has someone hacked Google Maps to show Downing Street as a through route?
Lol. Did they not case the joint, and take a good look both at the gates and the barriers behind them? Oh, and the dozen armed police that are always there.
If it was Liz Truss at the wheel, and Kwasi Kwarteng navigating, there may not have been a tremendous amount of forward planning.
Footage of the 'ramming' suggests a careful, cautious driver (other than the crashing bit, obviously!). Rules out T&K
FPT on the explosion of student accommodation that might be turned into residential flats later I think there is a tax avoidance thing possibly to do with avoiding VAT.
Lots of action on the animal welfare front today. The Government has dropped its own Kept Animals Bill, which would have banned live exports and had already passed two readings in the Commons, and instead have said that its contents will be put forward in separate bills later in this Parliament. This is a long-standing commitment which was advanced as one benefit of Brexit, and it featured prominently in the Government Animal Welfare Plan only last year. Campaigners are incensed, and I've got a strong interview on it which will probably be in tomorrow's Farming Today.
Meanwhile, the Animal Sentience Committee has finally been set up, after a year's delay - this is a genuinely positive measure with five independent experts monitoring what the Government does on animal welfare. To be fair, it's not often that Governments set up bodies to challenge Ministers, and they deserve credit for it
There isn’t that much time left in Parliament. Is this another broken Tory / Brexit promise?
Yes, probably, for exactly that reason (lack of time in this Parliament). But I'll be pleased to be proved wrong.
This is from The Guardian Live Blog:
"However, in the Commons this afternoon the environment minister, Mark Spencer, confirmed the legislation would be scrapped. He said that was happening because Labour was determined to widen the scope of the bill “far beyond the original commitments in the manifesto”.
Some Tories feared the bill could have been used to argue for curbs on hunting and farming."
Yes - but when I last heard, the Government had a majority, and if amendments were put that it doesn't like it could vote them down. The basic problem is that they seem to have lost interest in their own Bill, even though Sunak had said he would be a "champion" for it.
The intention seems to be to start again with a number of single-issue Bills, which might either be Government or Private Members' Bills. That can't happen before November, and as Gardenwalker says there is a question about whether they would run out of time before the election. So the cause is not yet lost, but it's at serious risk.
I’m amazed it requires Primary Legislation. I’d have assumed there was already lots of Acts around animal welfare and/or exports with loose enough short titles and enough wiggle room to vary what can and can’t be done in this space via SI.
Lol. Did they not case the joint, and take a good look both at the gates and the barriers behind them? Oh, and the dozen armed police that are always there.
If it was Liz Truss at the wheel, and Kwasi Kwarteng navigating, there may not have been a tremendous amount of forward planning.
Footage of the 'ramming' suggests a careful, cautious driver (other than the crashing bit, obviously!). Rules out T&K
Incapacitated or lost driver, rather than anything nefarious. Assuming there’s not a bomb in the car.
Could be someone wanting to make a point without hurting anyone. Could be someone hoping to get shot but not wanting anyone else to be hurt. Any number of possible reasons, wrong to speculate at this stage but it was definitely Braverman.
Has someone hacked Google Maps to show Downing Street as a through route?
It looks more like a SatNav fail than anything.
Google might have been confused by the recent high turnover of occupants into thinking it was an open road again ?
Lol. Did they not case the joint, and take a good look both at the gates and the barriers behind them? Oh, and the dozen armed police that are always there.
If it was Liz Truss at the wheel, and Kwasi Kwarteng navigating, there may not have been a tremendous amount of forward planning.
Footage of the 'ramming' suggests a careful, cautious driver (other than the crashing bit, obviously!). Rules out T&K
Incapacitated or lost driver, rather than anything nefarious. Assuming there’s not a bomb in the car.
Could be someone wanting to make a point without hurting anyone. Could be someone hoping to get shot but not wanting anyone else to be hurt. Any number of possible reasons, wrong to speculate at this stage but it was definitely Braverman.
Has someone hacked Google Maps to show Downing Street as a through route?
It looks more like a SatNav fail than anything.
Google might have been confused by the recent high turnover of occupants into thinking it was an open road again ?
Google's AI picked up on the speeding punishment on Suella's licence and thought Whitehall was a good place for a 3-point u-turn.
On topic, one big benefit of Brexit (and one I see is very little commented upon) is how it's largely ended public concern about mass migration, because control has been restored.
To the extent that concern remains it is where it is still seen to be uncontrolled, e.g. over small boats, or where people abuse the system.
On topic, one big benefit of Brexit (and one I see is very little commented upon) is how it's largely ended public concern about mass migration, because control has been restored.
Thank you for pointing that out. It's all too easily missed that there is no longer any public concern about mass migration.
Note that these numbers all have political/electoral implications. Mostly they reflect patterns that have existed since at least 1945, such as the fact that the demographics of Nevada are in constant flux due to newcomers arriving in try their luck in Vegas - as residents as well as gamblers (one way or another).
But note also significant 21st-century impacts, for example the role of Hurricane Katrina & aftermath in making Louisiana the state with the highest percentage of native-born residents, thus lowest % of newcomers. Also Michigan and Ohio numbers, where relative decline of manufacturing is reflected in similar numbers.
Perhaps biggest surprise for your's truly, is that my old home state, West Virginia, is NOT the most native & least newcomer. Back at turn of 20th>21st century, WV and PA vied for this title.
Since then, decline of the Midwest and lower Mississippi Valley has decreased the attraction of states in these regions for non-natives, while in WV and PA situation may (emphasis on conditional) have bottomed out, along with attractiveness of certain sections, such as Morgantown (WV University) and State College (Penn State University).
Lol. Did they not case the joint, and take a good look both at the gates and the barriers behind them? Oh, and the dozen armed police that are always there.
If it was Liz Truss at the wheel, and Kwasi Kwarteng navigating, there may not have been a tremendous amount of forward planning.
Footage of the 'ramming' suggests a careful, cautious driver (other than the crashing bit, obviously!). Rules out T&K
Thanks. That's useful information. Rules out Suella.
Has the possibility been ruled out that it was just a typical Tory cabinet minister on their way to number 10, and they just couldn't meet the necessary level of general intelligence to avoid crashing into the gates?
An obvious gag, but it is the case that Trump can sometimes be genuinely funny. Intentionally so, since he is also often inconveniently funny unintentionally.
Am not sure if this car hitting the Downing Street gates was planned or just a drunk driver? Looking at the way he was driving I think more the latter but obviously nothing confirmed
Wonder what this does to recall/by-election timing?
A vote on whether to ban MP Margaret Ferrier from the House of Commons for 30 days for breaching Covid rules has been postponed. MPs were expected to back the move against the Rutherglen and Hamilton MP, which is likely to lead to a by-election in the constituency.
But the vote has now been withdrawn because too few MPs were present in the Commons to guarantee it would be carried. It will now take place next month.
The ECB is going to have to up the pay of England players significantly.
England players salaries have historically always been very low compared to the revenue generated - because you have no choice which country you play for - so the ECB could get away with underpaying.
ECB gets £220m per year from Sky - vast majority of that relates to international cricket. But how much goes to England players? I would say about £20m.
In most professional sports the players get well over 50% of the revenue generated.
Whereas the ECB has historically spent all kinds of money on various projects, admin etc (plus in fairness supporting the counties).
Going forward this will have to change. They'll need to move top England players on to say £2m+ and everyone playing regularly will need to be on £1m+. So probably £50m to the players (allowing for all formats you are probably looking at about 30-35 England players).
But the ECB can do that if they want to. They will just have to get real and take on the competition.
That will work in the short-term, but unlike, say, the IPL, or the EPL, the ECB only pay the players for one team, and they'll make sod all from Sky if they don't have decent quality opponents to play international cricket against.
How do they schedule 14 Tests a year when they only have Australia, India and Pakistan to play (and the latter only because the IPL bans their players)?
Test Cricket has hung on quite a bit longer, in terms of prominence, than I would have feared 10 years ago, but the fundamental issue is not enough places want to play it and there's no getting round that.
Am not sure if this car hitting the Downing Street gates was planned or just a drunk driver? Looking at the way he was driving I think more the latter but obviously nothing confirmed
Comments
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1661734681375805444
If one of those did hit something, it would really spoil someone's day.
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Fascism is as much anti-socialist as it is racist, and it's very racist even against other white Europeans. They even kinda hated the fascists in other countries!
Under Jezza there was less AS than in the General Population according to the Parliamentary report
But Hey you are not interested either in facts or whether SKS is a Racist as Martin Forde says
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/world/europe/28iht-britain.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#National_poll_results
As for what I post about, why don’t you skip over? Mate.
"However, in the Commons this afternoon the environment minister, Mark Spencer, confirmed the legislation would be scrapped. He said that was happening because Labour was determined to widen the scope of the bill “far beyond the original commitments in the manifesto”.
Some Tories feared the bill could have been used to argue for curbs on hunting and farming."
I agree with you about the idiots who believe they cause cancer.
These people think you are all stupid.
The West Indies and Sri Lanka are surely in the same sort of position, and New Zealand won't be far behind. The Ireland cricket board have been very candid that they lose money when they put on Test matches.
The future is of ever fewer Test matches and that's a major threat to the ECB's business model. I'm kinda hoping that India will defeat Australia and win the World Test Championship, and that will manage to win more Indian attention for Test matches, and so even up the financial advantage T20 currently has. But it's a tenuous hope.
He was head boy and captain of the rugby team
Why be a great big fun sponge and moan about someone else's passion?
That still doesn't stop people from creating blooming stupid applications though (say by asking for one on the top of a hill in a national park right next to and so visible from another national park)
Blatently stupid decisions are the easy ones to deal with.
And, also, the two are different. You were asked a question, which you could answer. You didn't ask me why I found Test cricket enthralling, you simply stated your negative opinion that it was dull, spreading a miasma of negativity.
.
Suella Braverman?
Liz Truss?
Boris Johnson?
Or perhaps not a Tory?
Truss?
Err, nope. Nothing, at all, not one ticket, it all sold out months ago.
Don't think many happened before the consequences to the committee members (and council finances) was pointed out.
Shame they didn't get through the fence. Would have been interesting to see how many extra holes the car acquired.
The intention seems to be to start again with a number of single-issue Bills, which might either be Government or Private Members' Bills. That can't happen before November, and as Gardenwalker says there is a question about whether they would run out of time before the election. So the cause is not yet lost, but it's at serious risk.
Sometimes planning requires restoration to agriculture when it would be far better for biodiversity to leave the quarry there to revegetate on its own. They are often very interesting sites, particularly the limestone quarries west of here.
What usually happens though is that someone sees a big hole in the ground and then wonders what crap they can fill it with.
https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1661764182914527237
Or, if money is all that matters to us, then perhaps we should be open about that, and just auction off a certain number of permits ("green cards" in the US) each year. (Would some libertarians like that? I suspect so.)
Could be someone hoping to get shot but not wanting anyone else to be hurt.
Any number of possible reasons, wrong to speculate at this stage but it was definitely Braverman.
It looks more like a SatNav fail than anything.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/natural-england-blamed-for-blocking-new-homes-ztfl3b9qv
To the extent that concern remains it is where it is still seen to be uncontrolled, e.g. over small boats, or where people abuse the system.
https://i.redd.it/hcur78rueq1b1.png
Lowest
Nevada 26.7%
Florida 35.8%
District of Columbia 37.0%
Arizona 39.6%
New Hampshire 41.3%
Alaska 41.8%
Colorado 42.4%
Wyoming 42.4%
Delaware 44.6%
Oregon 45.9%
Highest
Kentucky 68.9%
West Virginia 69.0%
Alabama 69.6%
Iowa 70.2%
Wisconsin 71.2%
Mississippi 71.6%
Pennsylvania 72.1%
Ohio 74.9%
Michigan 76.3%
Louisiana 78.1%
Note that these numbers all have political/electoral implications. Mostly they reflect patterns that have existed since at least 1945, such as the fact that the demographics of Nevada are in constant flux due to newcomers arriving in try their luck in Vegas - as residents as well as gamblers (one way or another).
But note also significant 21st-century impacts, for example the role of Hurricane Katrina & aftermath in making Louisiana the state with the highest percentage of native-born residents, thus lowest % of newcomers. Also Michigan and Ohio numbers, where relative decline of manufacturing is reflected in similar numbers.
Perhaps biggest surprise for your's truly, is that my old home state, West Virginia, is NOT the most native & least newcomer. Back at turn of 20th>21st century, WV and PA vied for this title.
Since then, decline of the Midwest and lower Mississippi Valley has decreased the attraction of states in these regions for non-natives, while in WV and PA situation may (emphasis on conditional) have bottomed out, along with attractiveness of certain sections, such as Morgantown (WV University) and State College (Penn State University).
A vote on whether to ban MP Margaret Ferrier from the House of Commons for 30 days for breaching Covid rules has been postponed.
MPs were expected to back the move against the Rutherglen and Hamilton MP, which is likely to lead to a by-election in the constituency.
But the vote has now been withdrawn because too few MPs were present in the Commons to guarantee it would be carried.
It will now take place next month.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-65702313.amp