Another reason not to vote Conservative, or will Rishi do the right thing?
DCB has long been a Tory, he worked for Sir Patrick Mayhew and was a Tory councillor in Tunbridge Wells in the 1990s and I campaigned with him when he was Conservative candidate for Warwick and Leamington in 2001.
He was briefly UKIP, being UKIP candidate for North Cornwall in 2005 but was a Conservative MEP again under Cameron and has been a Tory since
So you claim he is a Tory, and that Ken Clarke isn't...
Outcry over baby’s death behind bars A teenage mother had to cut the umbilical cord with her teeth after 12 hours alone in labour. Her baby Aisha died in the cell
Campaigners have demanded an end to the “high-risk” practice of sending pregnant women to prison as new figures show that nearly 200 expectant mothers were behind bars in England last year.
The warning of the dangers prison poses to the health of women and their unborn children coincides with the conclusion of an inquest into the death of Aisha Cleary, a baby who was found dead on the floor of a prison cell in September 2019, after her mother, a vulnerable teenager, was left to give birth alone at HMP Bronzefield in Ashford, Surrey. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/should-pregnant-women-ever-be-jailed-qqcwq70zt (£££)
I suspect there would be unintended consequences of a policy saying no pregnant women should ever be jailed
There are just no appropriate words. 1 in 35 people who took the jab have got myocarditis. The 5 year prognosis for myocarditis is 50% of people will die within that time period. 1 in 35 for a virus that has a survival rate of 99.8%
Michael, I don't know if you sincerely believe this, or if you're trolling. If the former, please rest assured that this is nonsense.
Of course you are a great medical expert.
Michael, it's transparently nonsense. 1 in 35 people who took the jab have got myocarditis? I know hundreds of people who've been jabbed, and know no-one with myocarditis. We're over two years into that five year period. If we were going to see thousands of people dying from myocarditis it would have started by now. Rest easy, my new friend. This is misinformation you have been fed.
Maybe they dont know or arent telling you. People are secretive.
Another reason not to vote Conservative, or will Rishi do the right thing?
DCB has long been a Tory, he worked for Sir Patrick Mayhew and was a Tory councillor in Tunbridge Wells in the 1990s and I campaigned with him when he was Conservative candidate for Warwick and Leamington in 2001.
He was briefly UKIP, being UKIP candidate for North Cornwall in 2005 but was a Conservative MEP again under Cameron and has been a Tory since
So you claim he is a Tory, and that Ken Clarke isn't...
In @HYUFD view he is a Tory and I am not because I voted for Blair twice
And talking of Blair he warns today against asking the public to do a huge amount to tackle climate change saying Britain net zero efforts cannot solve global warming alone
I am confident that Gina Miller's political party's bank account getting closed by her bank will attract the same level of concern from the same people who leapt to the defence of Nigel Farage.
It seems it was a party political account, not a personal one like Farage, and they did say they do not allow party political accounts
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
Outcry over baby’s death behind bars A teenage mother had to cut the umbilical cord with her teeth after 12 hours alone in labour. Her baby Aisha died in the cell
Campaigners have demanded an end to the “high-risk” practice of sending pregnant women to prison as new figures show that nearly 200 expectant mothers were behind bars in England last year.
The warning of the dangers prison poses to the health of women and their unborn children coincides with the conclusion of an inquest into the death of Aisha Cleary, a baby who was found dead on the floor of a prison cell in September 2019, after her mother, a vulnerable teenager, was left to give birth alone at HMP Bronzefield in Ashford, Surrey. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/should-pregnant-women-ever-be-jailed-qqcwq70zt (£££)
I suspect there would be unintended consequences of a policy saying no pregnant women should ever be jailed
The people who let this woman go into labour alone in a prison cell and let her baby die should be investigated for manslaughter.
I am confident that Gina Miller's political party's bank account getting closed by her bank will attract the same level of concern from the same people who leapt to the defence of Nigel Farage.
It seems it was a party political account, not a personal one like Farage, and they did say they do not allow party political accounts
And Coutts did say that the eligibility criteria for an account is £1m in cash. And yet I keep reading how beastly it is that they didn't maintain an account for that pauper Farage.
I am confident that Gina Miller's political party's bank account getting closed by her bank will attract the same level of concern from the same people who leapt to the defence of Nigel Farage.
It seems it was a party political account, not a personal one like Farage, and they did say they do not allow party political accounts
And Coutts did say that the eligibility criteria for an account is £1m in cash. And yet I keep reading how beastly it is that they didn't maintain an account for that pauper Farage.
I'm confident the Farage fan club will be batting for these guys too.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
I am also in a city which, I believe, might have more concurrent names than anywhere else in the universe. All these names are still used by its citizens of various kinds:
Romanian: Cernăuți ([tʃernəˈutsʲ]; German: Czernowitz ([ˈtʃɛɐ̯novɪts]; Polish: Czerniowce; Hungarian: Csernovic, Yiddish: טשערנאָוויץ, romanized: Tshernovits, Russian: Черновцы́, romanized: Chernovtsy, (In Russian until 1944: Чернови́цы, romanized: Chernovitsy). In the times of Halych-Volyn Principality the city's name was Chern. A variant Russian name is Chernov'tsi (Russian: Черновьци).
Right now the Ukrainians call it “Chernivtsi”: Чернівці́
Outcry over baby’s death behind bars A teenage mother had to cut the umbilical cord with her teeth after 12 hours alone in labour. Her baby Aisha died in the cell
Campaigners have demanded an end to the “high-risk” practice of sending pregnant women to prison as new figures show that nearly 200 expectant mothers were behind bars in England last year.
The warning of the dangers prison poses to the health of women and their unborn children coincides with the conclusion of an inquest into the death of Aisha Cleary, a baby who was found dead on the floor of a prison cell in September 2019, after her mother, a vulnerable teenager, was left to give birth alone at HMP Bronzefield in Ashford, Surrey. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/should-pregnant-women-ever-be-jailed-qqcwq70zt (£££)
I suspect there would be unintended consequences of a policy saying no pregnant women should ever be jailed
The people who let this woman go into labour alone in a prison cell and let her baby die should be investigated for manslaughter.
I don’t know the case, but it sounds horrible from the headlines
"Tesla has consistently exaggerated the driving range of its electric vehicles, reportedly leading car owners to think something was broken when actual driving range was much lower than advertised. When these owners scheduled service appointments to fix the problem, Tesla canceled the appointments because there was no way to improve the actual distance Tesla cars could drive between charges, according to an investigation by Reuters.
In mid-2022, Tesla started routing range complaints to a "Diversion Team" that fielded up to 2,000 cases a week and "was expected to close about 750 cases a week," Reuters reported."
How does that work? Tesla displays two sets of data - percentage state of charge, and range based on WLTP. I always have it set on percentage because the WLTP guessometer is always nonsense.
I'm on quite a few Facebook forums and there's usually a clash between "I just got my Tesla and it does half the advertised range" and "mine does more than the advertised range". As with any car, it depends on how you drive. I don't get the advertised range because I spend too much of the time hoofing it.
I am confident that Gina Miller's political party's bank account getting closed by her bank will attract the same level of concern from the same people who leapt to the defence of Nigel Farage.
It seems it was a party political account, not a personal one like Farage, and they did say they do not allow party political accounts
And Coutts did say that the eligibility criteria for an account is £1m in cash. And yet I keep reading how beastly it is that they didn't maintain an account for that pauper Farage.
Yet many people came forward with balances less than that who still had an account with Coutts.
Outcry over baby’s death behind bars A teenage mother had to cut the umbilical cord with her teeth after 12 hours alone in labour. Her baby Aisha died in the cell
Campaigners have demanded an end to the “high-risk” practice of sending pregnant women to prison as new figures show that nearly 200 expectant mothers were behind bars in England last year.
The warning of the dangers prison poses to the health of women and their unborn children coincides with the conclusion of an inquest into the death of Aisha Cleary, a baby who was found dead on the floor of a prison cell in September 2019, after her mother, a vulnerable teenager, was left to give birth alone at HMP Bronzefield in Ashford, Surrey. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/should-pregnant-women-ever-be-jailed-qqcwq70zt (£££)
I suspect there would be unintended consequences of a policy saying no pregnant women should ever be jailed
The people who let this woman go into labour alone in a prison cell and let her baby die should be investigated for manslaughter.
I don’t know the case, but it sounds horrible from the headlines
Utterly awful. OLB is right. Manslaughter investigation is the least this Lady and her, sadly deceased, child deserve.
"Tesla has consistently exaggerated the driving range of its electric vehicles, reportedly leading car owners to think something was broken when actual driving range was much lower than advertised. When these owners scheduled service appointments to fix the problem, Tesla canceled the appointments because there was no way to improve the actual distance Tesla cars could drive between charges, according to an investigation by Reuters.
In mid-2022, Tesla started routing range complaints to a "Diversion Team" that fielded up to 2,000 cases a week and "was expected to close about 750 cases a week," Reuters reported."
How does that work? Tesla displays two sets of data - percentage state of charge, and range based on WLTP. I always have it set on percentage because the WLTP guessometer is always nonsense.
I'm on quite a few Facebook forums and there's usually a clash between "I just got my Tesla and it does half the advertised range" and "mine does more than the advertised range". As with any car, it depends on how you drive. I don't get the advertised range because I spend too much of the time hoofing it.
I am confident that Gina Miller's political party's bank account getting closed by her bank will attract the same level of concern from the same people who leapt to the defence of Nigel Farage.
A simple rule of banks must tell customers why they are closing accounts, even in suspected money laundering cases, would make a big difference. Forget fears about tipping off, the big money launderers are well ahead of that nowadays anyway, and probably less impacted by AML than genuine small businesses that happen to deal with cash.
I am confident that Gina Miller's political party's bank account getting closed by her bank will attract the same level of concern from the same people who leapt to the defence of Nigel Farage.
It seems it was a party political account, not a personal one like Farage, and they did say they do not allow party political accounts
And Coutts did say that the eligibility criteria for an account is £1m in cash. And yet I keep reading how beastly it is that they didn't maintain an account for that pauper Farage.
I'm confident the Farage fan club will be batting for these guys too.
Not part of the Nigel Farage fan club (have spent an afternoon drinking with him so can base it on personal experience) but what happened to those examples is also wrong. Again banks need to work with the regulators to adjust regs so that when they close your account they should be obligated to give you the reason so that you can appeal to the ombudsman.
AML laws shouldn’t have to affect this happening as if a bank thinks they have a money launderer, terrorist, drug dealer with an account then the more sensible option is that they have immunity once it’s reported to the authorities so that the account keeps operating while the investigation and intelligence gathering goes on and the account can be frozen if or when charges are made.
I am confident that Gina Miller's political party's bank account getting closed by her bank will attract the same level of concern from the same people who leapt to the defence of Nigel Farage.
It seems it was a party political account, not a personal one like Farage, and they did say they do not allow party political accounts
And Coutts did say that the eligibility criteria for an account is £1m in cash. And yet I keep reading how beastly it is that they didn't maintain an account for that pauper Farage.
I'm confident the Farage fan club will be batting for these guys too.
This has been going on for a long time, it is good someone with a high profile and the determination to do something about it has done something.
Stories like this have been commonplace in the financial pages for years. IF people can see past their "it's only Farage, so it's okay, as I don't like him" mindset they may see he is doing a bit of a public service.
Every morning we wake up to our daily INCOMING update
00:00 today:
📡 Оцінка обстановки станом на 00:00
— Стратегічна авіація не активна. На ае "Енгельс" розміщено 3х борти Ту-22м3, споряджені 3 ракетами Х-22 загалом; На ае "Шайковка" розміщено 8х бортів Ту-22м3, споряджені 9 ракетами Х-22 загалом; — Інформація про запуск ударних БпЛА типу "Шахед" не надходила. — В акваторії Чорного моря присутній ракетоносій із можливістю несення до 4х КРМБ типу "Калібр".
Ситуація може змінитись впродовж ночі, дослухайтесь сигналів повітряної тривоги.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
"Tesla has consistently exaggerated the driving range of its electric vehicles, reportedly leading car owners to think something was broken when actual driving range was much lower than advertised. When these owners scheduled service appointments to fix the problem, Tesla canceled the appointments because there was no way to improve the actual distance Tesla cars could drive between charges, according to an investigation by Reuters.
In mid-2022, Tesla started routing range complaints to a "Diversion Team" that fielded up to 2,000 cases a week and "was expected to close about 750 cases a week," Reuters reported."
How does that work? Tesla displays two sets of data - percentage state of charge, and range based on WLTP. I always have it set on percentage because the WLTP guessometer is always nonsense.
I'm on quite a few Facebook forums and there's usually a clash between "I just got my Tesla and it does half the advertised range" and "mine does more than the advertised range". As with any car, it depends on how you drive. I don't get the advertised range because I spend too much of the time hoofing it.
My Kia eniro shows miles remaining, and is very accurate, so showing 280 when 100%. It calculates the range by driving style etc, so put the aircon on and it reduces by 10 miles or so, turn it off and the figure goes back up.
"Tesla has consistently exaggerated the driving range of its electric vehicles, reportedly leading car owners to think something was broken when actual driving range was much lower than advertised. When these owners scheduled service appointments to fix the problem, Tesla canceled the appointments because there was no way to improve the actual distance Tesla cars could drive between charges, according to an investigation by Reuters.
In mid-2022, Tesla started routing range complaints to a "Diversion Team" that fielded up to 2,000 cases a week and "was expected to close about 750 cases a week," Reuters reported."
How does that work? Tesla displays two sets of data - percentage state of charge, and range based on WLTP. I always have it set on percentage because the WLTP guessometer is always nonsense.
I'm on quite a few Facebook forums and there's usually a clash between "I just got my Tesla and it does half the advertised range" and "mine does more than the advertised range". As with any car, it depends on how you drive. I don't get the advertised range because I spend too much of the time hoofing it.
I don't know. If you read the article, then it seems there is a fair amount of evidence of the issue.
And one point made in the article is that it is not just about how you drive: temperature matters as well.
I don't know either. The only part of the software that provides an estimate based on live data is on the range charts, and that will show you where your consumption is over or under the estimate and why.
As for temperature, this is true. As it is on piston cars - colder weather burns more fuel, wet weather too. Never mind the performance of the battery pack, this is still a car, and basic rolling dynamics still applies.
"Tesla has consistently exaggerated the driving range of its electric vehicles, reportedly leading car owners to think something was broken when actual driving range was much lower than advertised. When these owners scheduled service appointments to fix the problem, Tesla canceled the appointments because there was no way to improve the actual distance Tesla cars could drive between charges, according to an investigation by Reuters.
In mid-2022, Tesla started routing range complaints to a "Diversion Team" that fielded up to 2,000 cases a week and "was expected to close about 750 cases a week," Reuters reported."
How does that work? Tesla displays two sets of data - percentage state of charge, and range based on WLTP. I always have it set on percentage because the WLTP guessometer is always nonsense.
I'm on quite a few Facebook forums and there's usually a clash between "I just got my Tesla and it does half the advertised range" and "mine does more than the advertised range". As with any car, it depends on how you drive. I don't get the advertised range because I spend too much of the time hoofing it.
My Kia eniro shows miles remaining, and is very accurate, so showing 280 when 100%. It calculates the range by driving style etc, so put the aircon on and it reduces by 10 miles or so, turn it off and the figure goes back up.
I have stress-tested the miles to go estimate in my Model Y. Using the driving dynamics screens, not the WLTP mileage indicator. And like yours it is very accurate. I did Liverpool - Edinburgh in early March with very cold temperatures and snow showers. It said I would arrive on 2% and I did.
I am confident that Gina Miller's political party's bank account getting closed by her bank will attract the same level of concern from the same people who leapt to the defence of Nigel Farage.
It seems it was a party political account, not a personal one like Farage, and they did say they do not allow party political accounts
And Coutts did say that the eligibility criteria for an account is £1m in cash. And yet I keep reading how beastly it is that they didn't maintain an account for that pauper Farage.
Anyone who keeps £1m in cash in their bank account is either so rich that it is irrelevant to them, or they are an idiot.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
One of the Refugee charities has a proposal to fix the dinghy issue. The idea is to go to France and safely carry 10,000 asylum seekers to Britain where their claims can be properly and speedily processed. Apparently if this happens everyone else will think “OK that’s fair, I’ll give up trying to cross in a little boat, now”
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
There are just no appropriate words. 1 in 35 people who took the jab have got myocarditis. The 5 year prognosis for myocarditis is 50% of people will die within that time period. 1 in 35 for a virus that has a survival rate of 99.8%
Michael, I don't know if you sincerely believe this, or if you're trolling. If the former, please rest assured that this is nonsense.
Of course you are a great medical expert.
Michael, it's transparently nonsense. 1 in 35 people who took the jab have got myocarditis? I know hundreds of people who've been jabbed, and know no-one with myocarditis. We're over two years into that five year period. If we were going to see thousands of people dying from myocarditis it would have started by now. Rest easy, my new friend. This is misinformation you have been fed.
Maybe they dont know or arent telling you. People are secretive.
"Tesla has consistently exaggerated the driving range of its electric vehicles, reportedly leading car owners to think something was broken when actual driving range was much lower than advertised. When these owners scheduled service appointments to fix the problem, Tesla canceled the appointments because there was no way to improve the actual distance Tesla cars could drive between charges, according to an investigation by Reuters.
In mid-2022, Tesla started routing range complaints to a "Diversion Team" that fielded up to 2,000 cases a week and "was expected to close about 750 cases a week," Reuters reported."
How does that work? Tesla displays two sets of data - percentage state of charge, and range based on WLTP. I always have it set on percentage because the WLTP guessometer is always nonsense.
I'm on quite a few Facebook forums and there's usually a clash between "I just got my Tesla and it does half the advertised range" and "mine does more than the advertised range". As with any car, it depends on how you drive. I don't get the advertised range because I spend too much of the time hoofing it.
I don't know. If you read the article, then it seems there is a fair amount of evidence of the issue.
And one point made in the article is that it is not just about how you drive: temperature matters as well.
I don't know either. The only part of the software that provides an estimate based on live data is on the range charts, and that will show you where your consumption is over or under the estimate and why.
As for temperature, this is true. As it is on piston cars - colder weather burns more fuel, wet weather too. Never mind the performance of the battery pack, this is still a car, and basic rolling dynamics still applies.
Battery efficiency falls off a cliff as temperature decreases though - hydrocarbon-fuelled systems gently reduce. Heating also slaughters EV efficiency at low temperatures - and in most hydrocarbon cars, that heat is 'free'.
I know you're very much an EV fan - but that doesn't mean that the tech doesn't have some significant downsides that cannot just be handwaved away.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
One of the Refugee charities has a proposal to fix the dinghy issue. The idea is to go to France and safely carry 10,000 asylum seekers to Britain where their claims can be properly and speedily processed. Apparently if this happens everyone else will think “OK that’s fair, I’ll give up trying to cross in a little boat, now”
That’s it. That’s the plan. Genius
You have kids. Would you stick them on a small boat that has a high chance of sinking if there was a safe alternative?
Currently we endure literal thousands coming across every few days. We're now looking at increasingly silly and expensive ways to house them whilst they get processed. So STOP THE BOATS has only made the boats come faster - because there are no legal routes.
So why not honour our debt to Afghans and open up a legal route to claim asylum? They're coming anyway.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
And because there are organised criminals able to act with impunity on both sides of the channel. Yvette Cooper on Today had an interesting stat. Fewer convictions (or was it arrests?) for people smuggling in 2022 than in 2010. And think how much more smuggling there is now.
There is a law and order (and proper funding thereof) side to this which, combined with reasonable safe routes for refugees, constitutes a way forward.
I am confident that Gina Miller's political party's bank account getting closed by her bank will attract the same level of concern from the same people who leapt to the defence of Nigel Farage.
It seems it was a party political account, not a personal one like Farage, and they did say they do not allow party political accounts
Just as Coutts would have had legitimate reasons to close Farage's account. Had they not been idiots.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
One of the Refugee charities has a proposal to fix the dinghy issue. The idea is to go to France and safely carry 10,000 asylum seekers to Britain where their claims can be properly and speedily processed. Apparently if this happens everyone else will think “OK that’s fair, I’ll give up trying to cross in a little boat, now”
That’s it. That’s the plan. Genius
You have kids. Would you stick them on a small boat that has a high chance of sinking if there was a safe alternative?
Currently we endure literal thousands coming across every few days. We're now looking at increasingly silly and expensive ways to house them whilst they get processed. So STOP THE BOATS has only made the boats come faster - because there are no legal routes.
So why not honour our debt to Afghans and open up a legal route to claim asylum? They're coming anyway.
Jeez
1. They’ll keep crossing even if we provide legal routes as well
2. Cross channel legal routes on top of illegal crossings will only add to the pull factor (you’ve now got two ways to cross, potentially)
Do you find everyday life challenging? Making tea, etc?
"Tesla has consistently exaggerated the driving range of its electric vehicles, reportedly leading car owners to think something was broken when actual driving range was much lower than advertised. When these owners scheduled service appointments to fix the problem, Tesla canceled the appointments because there was no way to improve the actual distance Tesla cars could drive between charges, according to an investigation by Reuters.
In mid-2022, Tesla started routing range complaints to a "Diversion Team" that fielded up to 2,000 cases a week and "was expected to close about 750 cases a week," Reuters reported."
How does that work? Tesla displays two sets of data - percentage state of charge, and range based on WLTP. I always have it set on percentage because the WLTP guessometer is always nonsense.
I'm on quite a few Facebook forums and there's usually a clash between "I just got my Tesla and it does half the advertised range" and "mine does more than the advertised range". As with any car, it depends on how you drive. I don't get the advertised range because I spend too much of the time hoofing it.
I don't know. If you read the article, then it seems there is a fair amount of evidence of the issue.
And one point made in the article is that it is not just about how you drive: temperature matters as well.
I don't know either. The only part of the software that provides an estimate based on live data is on the range charts, and that will show you where your consumption is over or under the estimate and why.
As for temperature, this is true. As it is on piston cars - colder weather burns more fuel, wet weather too. Never mind the performance of the battery pack, this is still a car, and basic rolling dynamics still applies.
Battery efficiency falls off a cliff as temperature decreases though - hydrocarbon-fuelled systems gently reduce. Heating also slaughters EV efficiency at low temperatures - and in most hydrocarbon cars, that heat is 'free'.
I know you're very much an EV fan - but that doesn't mean that the tech doesn't have some significant downsides that cannot just be handwaved away.
Its most definitely a developing technology. And some manufacturers (of both cars and batteries) have nailed it, and others have not. There are an awful lot of videos out there of EVs which suffer "rapidgate" and "coldgate" effects - too much charging or too cold a temperature and battery performance falls off a cliff as you say.
That is shit design and engineering. Because it doesn't have to be that way. Tesla drivetrain has none of that. Nor Hyundai/Kia/Genesis. Supposedly the new Chinese brands like Polestar and MG have also got reliable battery performance.
if VAG / BMW / Stellantis etc have shitty battery performance, that is their fault, not the fault of the technology. Too many legacy manufacturers are doing this reluctantly, and don't seem to care about packaging or efficiency or performance.
How is that any different to piston cars where some manufacturers build reliable and efficient drivetrains, and JLR etc don't?
Outcry over baby’s death behind bars A teenage mother had to cut the umbilical cord with her teeth after 12 hours alone in labour. Her baby Aisha died in the cell
Campaigners have demanded an end to the “high-risk” practice of sending pregnant women to prison as new figures show that nearly 200 expectant mothers were behind bars in England last year.
The warning of the dangers prison poses to the health of women and their unborn children coincides with the conclusion of an inquest into the death of Aisha Cleary, a baby who was found dead on the floor of a prison cell in September 2019, after her mother, a vulnerable teenager, was left to give birth alone at HMP Bronzefield in Ashford, Surrey. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/should-pregnant-women-ever-be-jailed-qqcwq70zt (£££)
Do they think the poor lady would escape if they, you know, took her to hospital?
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
We do work with out European partners - we've done several deals with the French over the years. e.g.:
"The UK committed to providing €72.2 million for UK–French border control (around £62.2 million) in 2022/23. A Joint Leaders' Declaration issued after the UK–France leaders' summit in March 2023 included further financial commitments for the UK: around £476 million between 2023/24 and 2025/26."
" We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system."
I agree with this. But I fear it ignores the fact that the numbers coming over have increased vastly over the last five years. I fail to see how we can increase the systems to cope with the massive influx.
If you want an example on the politics of this, look at prison ships. Often proposed (or used) as an emergency measure by governments and lambasted by the opposition. And then proposed by that opposition when they get power, and lambasted by the new opposition who quite liked them when they were in power...
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
I would permit asylum applications at British embassies and consulates abroad (not necessarily in their own country obvs). It would encourage applicants to get a quick decision rather than endlessly delay one, to keep their documentation intact, and to prove a legitimate reason why they need to come to Britain.
In the meantime they would be living abroad, and not at UK expense. If they were refused then they could legally be deported on arrival should they attempt a crossing. It would also then be reasonable to enquire of any arrival on a small boat why they did not apply to the British Embassy in Paris etc, and if they have no valid reason, refuse on those grounds.
I am confident that Gina Miller's political party's bank account getting closed by her bank will attract the same level of concern from the same people who leapt to the defence of Nigel Farage.
It seems it was a party political account, not a personal one like Farage, and they did say they do not allow party political accounts
So that's a no then.
Not really - in fact Farage has opened the debate for anyone to make a complaint if they have been unfairly treated
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
One of the Refugee charities has a proposal to fix the dinghy issue. The idea is to go to France and safely carry 10,000 asylum seekers to Britain where their claims can be properly and speedily processed. Apparently if this happens everyone else will think “OK that’s fair, I’ll give up trying to cross in a little boat, now”
That’s it. That’s the plan. Genius
The whole, "if we create safe and fair means for immigrants to apply from abroad and safe passage for them all this will go away" is equally bizarre. There may be a moral argument for such a policy but it has absolutely nothing to do with small boats or illegal immigration. It is a very deliberate distraction from the problem of how do we stop this?
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
I would permit asylum applications at British embassies and consulates abroad (not necessarily in their own country obvs). It would encourage applicants to get a quick decision rather than endlessly delay one, to keep their documentation intact, and to prove a legitimate reason why they need to come to Britain.
In the meantime they would be living abroad, and not at UK expense. If they were refused then they could legally be deported on arrival should they attempt a crossing. It would also then be reasonable to enquire of any arrival on a small boat why they did not apply to the British Embassy in Paris etc, and if they have no valid reason, refuse on those grounds.
So we make it a problem for other countries by attracting people to go to a neighbouring country and rock up at the British embassy? I’m sure they will be delighted. And whilst these people are waiting in that country is it up to that country we’ve attracted people to to house and feed these people? Or is this only for refugees who can afford to support themselves and so a policy that excludes the poor?
Incidentally the pro-wagner coup in Niger is likely to interfere with the European military activities against trafficking rings on the major cross Sahara routes.
Concerning for other reasons too, including the fight against Islamist terror and loss of a major miner of Uranium.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
I would permit asylum applications at British embassies and consulates abroad (not necessarily in their own country obvs). It would encourage applicants to get a quick decision rather than endlessly delay one, to keep their documentation intact, and to prove a legitimate reason why they need to come to Britain.
In the meantime they would be living abroad, and not at UK expense. If they were refused then they could legally be deported on arrival should they attempt a crossing. It would also then be reasonable to enquire of any arrival on a small boat why they did not apply to the British Embassy in Paris etc, and if they have no valid reason, refuse on those grounds.
This would only work - and I doubt it would ever work - if people like you accepted mass deportations. Literally thousands of people being sent “home” (where and how?) every week
You wouldn’t. You’d whine about it. And the small boats sans papiers would keep coming, anyway
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
One of the Refugee charities has a proposal to fix the dinghy issue. The idea is to go to France and safely carry 10,000 asylum seekers to Britain where their claims can be properly and speedily processed. Apparently if this happens everyone else will think “OK that’s fair, I’ll give up trying to cross in a little boat, now”
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
I would permit asylum applications at British embassies and consulates abroad (not necessarily in their own country obvs). It would encourage applicants to get a quick decision rather than endlessly delay one, to keep their documentation intact, and to prove a legitimate reason why they need to come to Britain.
In the meantime they would be living abroad, and not at UK expense. If they were refused then they could legally be deported on arrival should they attempt a crossing. It would also then be reasonable to enquire of any arrival on a small boat why they did not apply to the British Embassy in Paris etc, and if they have no valid reason, refuse on those grounds.
So we make it a problem for other countries by attracting people to go to a neighbouring country and rock up at the British embassy? I’m sure they will be delighted. And whilst these people are waiting in that country is it up to that country we’ve attracted people to to house and feed these people? Or is this only for refugees who can afford to support themselves and so a policy that excludes the poor?
Yes, but that is no change to the status quo. It would encourage the French (for example) to provide suitable accommodation rather than the Calais camp.
"Tesla has consistently exaggerated the driving range of its electric vehicles, reportedly leading car owners to think something was broken when actual driving range was much lower than advertised. When these owners scheduled service appointments to fix the problem, Tesla canceled the appointments because there was no way to improve the actual distance Tesla cars could drive between charges, according to an investigation by Reuters.
In mid-2022, Tesla started routing range complaints to a "Diversion Team" that fielded up to 2,000 cases a week and "was expected to close about 750 cases a week," Reuters reported."
How does that work? Tesla displays two sets of data - percentage state of charge, and range based on WLTP. I always have it set on percentage because the WLTP guessometer is always nonsense.
I'm on quite a few Facebook forums and there's usually a clash between "I just got my Tesla and it does half the advertised range" and "mine does more than the advertised range". As with any car, it depends on how you drive. I don't get the advertised range because I spend too much of the time hoofing it.
I don't know. If you read the article, then it seems there is a fair amount of evidence of the issue.
And one point made in the article is that it is not just about how you drive: temperature matters as well.
I don't know either. The only part of the software that provides an estimate based on live data is on the range charts, and that will show you where your consumption is over or under the estimate and why.
As for temperature, this is true. As it is on piston cars - colder weather burns more fuel, wet weather too. Never mind the performance of the battery pack, this is still a car, and basic rolling dynamics still applies.
Battery efficiency falls off a cliff as temperature decreases though - hydrocarbon-fuelled systems gently reduce. Heating also slaughters EV efficiency at low temperatures - and in most hydrocarbon cars, that heat is 'free'.
I know you're very much an EV fan - but that doesn't mean that the tech doesn't have some significant downsides that cannot just be handwaved away.
Its most definitely a developing technology. And some manufacturers (of both cars and batteries) have nailed it, and others have not. There are an awful lot of videos out there of EVs which suffer "rapidgate" and "coldgate" effects - too much charging or too cold a temperature and battery performance falls off a cliff as you say.
That is shit design and engineering. Because it doesn't have to be that way. Tesla drivetrain has none of that. Nor Hyundai/Kia/Genesis. Supposedly the new Chinese brands like Polestar and MG have also got reliable battery performance.
if VAG / BMW / Stellantis etc have shitty battery performance, that is their fault, not the fault of the technology. Too many legacy manufacturers are doing this reluctantly, and don't seem to care about packaging or efficiency or performance.
How is that any different to piston cars where some manufacturers build reliable and efficient drivetrains, and JLR etc don't?
"And some manufacturers (of both cars and batteries) have nailed it, and others have not."
None of them have 'nailed' it, because they all use roughly similar battery chemistries, and that is where the fundamental issues lie. Some manufacturers have used good engineering to minimise the effects of these issues. But the issues are still there.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
I would permit asylum applications at British embassies and consulates abroad (not necessarily in their own country obvs). It would encourage applicants to get a quick decision rather than endlessly delay one, to keep their documentation intact, and to prove a legitimate reason why they need to come to Britain.
In the meantime they would be living abroad, and not at UK expense. If they were refused then they could legally be deported on arrival should they attempt a crossing. It would also then be reasonable to enquire of any arrival on a small boat why they did not apply to the British Embassy in Paris etc, and if they have no valid reason, refuse on those grounds.
This would only work - and I doubt it would ever work - if people like you accepted mass deportations. Literally thousands of people being sent “home” (where and how?) every week
You wouldn’t. You’d whine about it. And the small boats sans papiers would keep coming, anyway
On the contrary, I have always supported deportations once a case has been fairly heard.
A while ago someone here (maybe Sandpit) said: why not put the illegal crossers staight back on a ferry to Calais? Is this not the patently obvious solution?
Outcry over baby’s death behind bars A teenage mother had to cut the umbilical cord with her teeth after 12 hours alone in labour. Her baby Aisha died in the cell
Campaigners have demanded an end to the “high-risk” practice of sending pregnant women to prison as new figures show that nearly 200 expectant mothers were behind bars in England last year.
The warning of the dangers prison poses to the health of women and their unborn children coincides with the conclusion of an inquest into the death of Aisha Cleary, a baby who was found dead on the floor of a prison cell in September 2019, after her mother, a vulnerable teenager, was left to give birth alone at HMP Bronzefield in Ashford, Surrey. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/should-pregnant-women-ever-be-jailed-qqcwq70zt (£££)
Do they think the poor lady would escape if they, you know, took her to hospital?
Of course they should have done so.
Prisons have a duty of care to inmates health so I'd have thought this case would be a fairly quick and easy one for the courts to find against the prison.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
Why are they coming here from France to claim asylum in the first place? If they are desperate they should surely claim asylum at the first safe country they come to. Otherwise they're just here because they rightly think we're a soft touch, and because Macron, with breathtaking cynicism even for him, is not bothering to control his border.
Robert, this one's rubbish. Send him away. Oh, you have. Thanks.
I don't mind the high quality Russian trolls, but that one was bottom of the barrel. I'm actually a bit insulted that they can't be bothered sending us the more subtle and intelligent ones any more.
Talking of high quality Russian trolls, or at least rich and politically connected ones, here's Boris Johnson's great political friend, ennobled Lebedev who thinks Coutts closed Farage's account because of
corporate virtue signalling which, since last February, has weaponised Russophobia for the sake of moral posturing.
"Tesla has consistently exaggerated the driving range of its electric vehicles, reportedly leading car owners to think something was broken when actual driving range was much lower than advertised. When these owners scheduled service appointments to fix the problem, Tesla canceled the appointments because there was no way to improve the actual distance Tesla cars could drive between charges, according to an investigation by Reuters.
In mid-2022, Tesla started routing range complaints to a "Diversion Team" that fielded up to 2,000 cases a week and "was expected to close about 750 cases a week," Reuters reported."
How does that work? Tesla displays two sets of data - percentage state of charge, and range based on WLTP. I always have it set on percentage because the WLTP guessometer is always nonsense.
I'm on quite a few Facebook forums and there's usually a clash between "I just got my Tesla and it does half the advertised range" and "mine does more than the advertised range". As with any car, it depends on how you drive. I don't get the advertised range because I spend too much of the time hoofing it.
I don't know. If you read the article, then it seems there is a fair amount of evidence of the issue.
And one point made in the article is that it is not just about how you drive: temperature matters as well.
I don't know either. The only part of the software that provides an estimate based on live data is on the range charts, and that will show you where your consumption is over or under the estimate and why.
As for temperature, this is true. As it is on piston cars - colder weather burns more fuel, wet weather too. Never mind the performance of the battery pack, this is still a car, and basic rolling dynamics still applies.
Battery efficiency falls off a cliff as temperature decreases though - hydrocarbon-fuelled systems gently reduce. Heating also slaughters EV efficiency at low temperatures - and in most hydrocarbon cars, that heat is 'free'.
I know you're very much an EV fan - but that doesn't mean that the tech doesn't have some significant downsides that cannot just be handwaved away.
Its most definitely a developing technology. And some manufacturers (of both cars and batteries) have nailed it, and others have not. There are an awful lot of videos out there of EVs which suffer "rapidgate" and "coldgate" effects - too much charging or too cold a temperature and battery performance falls off a cliff as you say.
That is shit design and engineering. Because it doesn't have to be that way. Tesla drivetrain has none of that. Nor Hyundai/Kia/Genesis. Supposedly the new Chinese brands like Polestar and MG have also got reliable battery performance.
if VAG / BMW / Stellantis etc have shitty battery performance, that is their fault, not the fault of the technology. Too many legacy manufacturers are doing this reluctantly, and don't seem to care about packaging or efficiency or performance.
How is that any different to piston cars where some manufacturers build reliable and efficient drivetrains, and JLR etc don't?
"And some manufacturers (of both cars and batteries) have nailed it, and others have not."
None of them have 'nailed' it, because they all use roughly similar battery chemistries, and that is where the fundamental issues lie. Some manufacturers have used good engineering to minimise the effects of these issues. But the issues are still there.
If the issues are still there, how it is that they are not?
This is not an issue of battery chemistry. This is an issue of battery management. Nissan knew that their battery packs needed active temperature management (heating / cooling) but didn't have an engineering solution. So they pretended it wasn't needed, and now Nissan are barely even in the EV game despite being a pioneer.
I am sure that I ran a Tesla in extreme heat or extreme cold, I would see more variation in performance. But in a moderate climate like ours I have seen no dramatic changes in efficiency whether it is hot or cold. Nor in charging performance. Wet roads have more of an impact on efficiency than temperature.
Manage the battery and there are no issues. Same as managing an engine.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
I would permit asylum applications at British embassies and consulates abroad (not necessarily in their own country obvs). It would encourage applicants to get a quick decision rather than endlessly delay one, to keep their documentation intact, and to prove a legitimate reason why they need to come to Britain.
In the meantime they would be living abroad, and not at UK expense. If they were refused then they could legally be deported on arrival should they attempt a crossing. It would also then be reasonable to enquire of any arrival on a small boat why they did not apply to the British Embassy in Paris etc, and if they have no valid reason, refuse on those grounds.
So we make it a problem for other countries by attracting people to go to a neighbouring country and rock up at the British embassy? I’m sure they will be delighted. And whilst these people are waiting in that country is it up to that country we’ve attracted people to to house and feed these people? Or is this only for refugees who can afford to support themselves and so a policy that excludes the poor?
Yes, but that is no change to the status quo. It would encourage the French (for example) to provide suitable accommodation rather than the Calais camp.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
I would permit asylum applications at British embassies and consulates abroad (not necessarily in their own country obvs). It would encourage applicants to get a quick decision rather than endlessly delay one, to keep their documentation intact, and to prove a legitimate reason why they need to come to Britain.
In the meantime they would be living abroad, and not at UK expense. If they were refused then they could legally be deported on arrival should they attempt a crossing. It would also then be reasonable to enquire of any arrival on a small boat why they did not apply to the British Embassy in Paris etc, and if they have no valid reason, refuse on those grounds.
So we make it a problem for other countries by attracting people to go to a neighbouring country and rock up at the British embassy? I’m sure they will be delighted. And whilst these people are waiting in that country is it up to that country we’ve attracted people to to house and feed these people? Or is this only for refugees who can afford to support themselves and so a policy that excludes the poor?
Yes, but that is no change to the status quo. It would encourage the French (for example) to provide suitable accommodation rather than the Calais camp.
The French do not want them there so firstly the authorities in Calais will refuse the UK setting up a centre and secondly it incentivises turning a blind eye to small boats if it gets people moved out of Calais region quicker.
This whole “safe routes” sounds great until it hits the reality of the fact that the people you impose this on don’t want the migrants either. It makes people feel fluffy that there is some magic “safe route” but I never hear a solution that doesn’t mean pissing off another country which will then ensure they do everything to deter people using it and camping in their parks rather than welcome them in and draw even more people.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
One of the Refugee charities has a proposal to fix the dinghy issue. The idea is to go to France and safely carry 10,000 asylum seekers to Britain where their claims can be properly and speedily processed. Apparently if this happens everyone else will think “OK that’s fair, I’ll give up trying to cross in a little boat, now”
That’s it. That’s the plan. Genius
The whole, "if we create safe and fair means for immigrants to apply from abroad and safe passage for them all this will go away" is equally bizarre. There may be a moral argument for such a policy but it has absolutely nothing to do with small boats or illegal immigration. It is a very deliberate distraction from the problem of how do we stop this?
It’s just a means for liberal lefties like @foxy and @Rochdale to pretend they have a humane solution, and allow them to continue feeling virtuous as they attack the Fascist Tories. It is of course, and as has been pointed out, no solution at all
"Tesla has consistently exaggerated the driving range of its electric vehicles, reportedly leading car owners to think something was broken when actual driving range was much lower than advertised. When these owners scheduled service appointments to fix the problem, Tesla canceled the appointments because there was no way to improve the actual distance Tesla cars could drive between charges, according to an investigation by Reuters.
In mid-2022, Tesla started routing range complaints to a "Diversion Team" that fielded up to 2,000 cases a week and "was expected to close about 750 cases a week," Reuters reported."
How does that work? Tesla displays two sets of data - percentage state of charge, and range based on WLTP. I always have it set on percentage because the WLTP guessometer is always nonsense.
I'm on quite a few Facebook forums and there's usually a clash between "I just got my Tesla and it does half the advertised range" and "mine does more than the advertised range". As with any car, it depends on how you drive. I don't get the advertised range because I spend too much of the time hoofing it.
I don't know. If you read the article, then it seems there is a fair amount of evidence of the issue.
And one point made in the article is that it is not just about how you drive: temperature matters as well.
I don't know either. The only part of the software that provides an estimate based on live data is on the range charts, and that will show you where your consumption is over or under the estimate and why.
As for temperature, this is true. As it is on piston cars - colder weather burns more fuel, wet weather too. Never mind the performance of the battery pack, this is still a car, and basic rolling dynamics still applies.
Battery efficiency falls off a cliff as temperature decreases though - hydrocarbon-fuelled systems gently reduce. Heating also slaughters EV efficiency at low temperatures - and in most hydrocarbon cars, that heat is 'free'.
I know you're very much an EV fan - but that doesn't mean that the tech doesn't have some significant downsides that cannot just be handwaved away.
Its most definitely a developing technology. And some manufacturers (of both cars and batteries) have nailed it, and others have not. There are an awful lot of videos out there of EVs which suffer "rapidgate" and "coldgate" effects - too much charging or too cold a temperature and battery performance falls off a cliff as you say.
That is shit design and engineering. Because it doesn't have to be that way. Tesla drivetrain has none of that. Nor Hyundai/Kia/Genesis. Supposedly the new Chinese brands like Polestar and MG have also got reliable battery performance.
if VAG / BMW / Stellantis etc have shitty battery performance, that is their fault, not the fault of the technology. Too many legacy manufacturers are doing this reluctantly, and don't seem to care about packaging or efficiency or performance.
How is that any different to piston cars where some manufacturers build reliable and efficient drivetrains, and JLR etc don't?
It now looks extremely likely that solid state batteries will start being manufactured by several of the big players in the next two to three years. That will mean a significant jump in both energy capacity and reliability (and will also allow faster charging).
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
Why are they coming here from France to claim asylum in the first place? If they are desperate they should surely claim asylum at the first safe country they come to. Otherwise they're just here because they rightly think we're a soft touch, and because Macron, with breathtaking cynicism even for him, is not bothering to control his border.
This question has been answered many, many times. If you were forced to leave your home country, where would you go? You'd try to go somewhere where you have the best chance of starting a new life, somewhere where you have contacts, and can speak the language, wouldn't you? It's not rocket science.
And as for Macron's cynicism, I don't think we try to stop people leaving the country, do we?
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
I would permit asylum applications at British embassies and consulates abroad (not necessarily in their own country obvs). It would encourage applicants to get a quick decision rather than endlessly delay one, to keep their documentation intact, and to prove a legitimate reason why they need to come to Britain.
In the meantime they would be living abroad, and not at UK expense. If they were refused then they could legally be deported on arrival should they attempt a crossing. It would also then be reasonable to enquire of any arrival on a small boat why they did not apply to the British Embassy in Paris etc, and if they have no valid reason, refuse on those grounds.
This would only work - and I doubt it would ever work - if people like you accepted mass deportations. Literally thousands of people being sent “home” (where and how?) every week
You wouldn’t. You’d whine about it. And the small boats sans papiers would keep coming, anyway
On this terrible question there are currently these constraints: international treaty and obligation, domestic law, UK state capacity to cope with the actual people and the numbers involved, state capacity to run and enforce the law. Billions of people have in law a reasonable claim to asylum. And it is thought that lots of people actually live in the UK illegally. (I have no idea how many if true).
Three others: media and public/voter opinion. And being a western civilised country.
It is obvious to the feeblest intellect that no solution is possible as long as all those facts are in place.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
"Tesla has consistently exaggerated the driving range of its electric vehicles, reportedly leading car owners to think something was broken when actual driving range was much lower than advertised. When these owners scheduled service appointments to fix the problem, Tesla canceled the appointments because there was no way to improve the actual distance Tesla cars could drive between charges, according to an investigation by Reuters.
In mid-2022, Tesla started routing range complaints to a "Diversion Team" that fielded up to 2,000 cases a week and "was expected to close about 750 cases a week," Reuters reported."
How does that work? Tesla displays two sets of data - percentage state of charge, and range based on WLTP. I always have it set on percentage because the WLTP guessometer is always nonsense.
I'm on quite a few Facebook forums and there's usually a clash between "I just got my Tesla and it does half the advertised range" and "mine does more than the advertised range". As with any car, it depends on how you drive. I don't get the advertised range because I spend too much of the time hoofing it.
I don't know. If you read the article, then it seems there is a fair amount of evidence of the issue.
And one point made in the article is that it is not just about how you drive: temperature matters as well.
I don't know either. The only part of the software that provides an estimate based on live data is on the range charts, and that will show you where your consumption is over or under the estimate and why.
As for temperature, this is true. As it is on piston cars - colder weather burns more fuel, wet weather too. Never mind the performance of the battery pack, this is still a car, and basic rolling dynamics still applies.
Battery efficiency falls off a cliff as temperature decreases though - hydrocarbon-fuelled systems gently reduce. Heating also slaughters EV efficiency at low temperatures - and in most hydrocarbon cars, that heat is 'free'.
I know you're very much an EV fan - but that doesn't mean that the tech doesn't have some significant downsides that cannot just be handwaved away.
Its most definitely a developing technology. And some manufacturers (of both cars and batteries) have nailed it, and others have not. There are an awful lot of videos out there of EVs which suffer "rapidgate" and "coldgate" effects - too much charging or too cold a temperature and battery performance falls off a cliff as you say.
That is shit design and engineering. Because it doesn't have to be that way. Tesla drivetrain has none of that. Nor Hyundai/Kia/Genesis. Supposedly the new Chinese brands like Polestar and MG have also got reliable battery performance.
if VAG / BMW / Stellantis etc have shitty battery performance, that is their fault, not the fault of the technology. Too many legacy manufacturers are doing this reluctantly, and don't seem to care about packaging or efficiency or performance.
How is that any different to piston cars where some manufacturers build reliable and efficient drivetrains, and JLR etc don't?
"And some manufacturers (of both cars and batteries) have nailed it, and others have not."
None of them have 'nailed' it, because they all use roughly similar battery chemistries, and that is where the fundamental issues lie. Some manufacturers have used good engineering to minimise the effects of these issues. But the issues are still there.
Not entirely.
LFP chemistry batteries, for example, perform worse when cold than do other types on the market.
Some of the solid state prototypes operate efficiently at Arctic temperatures. That, and their much greater energy capacity, ought to see the issue disappear before the decade is out.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
Why are they coming here from France to claim asylum in the first place? If they are desperate they should surely claim asylum at the first safe country they come to. Otherwise they're just here because they rightly think we're a soft touch, and because Macron, with breathtaking cynicism even for him, is not bothering to control his border.
they they they they they they they we we we we we we we
"Tesla has consistently exaggerated the driving range of its electric vehicles, reportedly leading car owners to think something was broken when actual driving range was much lower than advertised. When these owners scheduled service appointments to fix the problem, Tesla canceled the appointments because there was no way to improve the actual distance Tesla cars could drive between charges, according to an investigation by Reuters.
In mid-2022, Tesla started routing range complaints to a "Diversion Team" that fielded up to 2,000 cases a week and "was expected to close about 750 cases a week," Reuters reported."
How does that work? Tesla displays two sets of data - percentage state of charge, and range based on WLTP. I always have it set on percentage because the WLTP guessometer is always nonsense.
I'm on quite a few Facebook forums and there's usually a clash between "I just got my Tesla and it does half the advertised range" and "mine does more than the advertised range". As with any car, it depends on how you drive. I don't get the advertised range because I spend too much of the time hoofing it.
I don't know. If you read the article, then it seems there is a fair amount of evidence of the issue.
And one point made in the article is that it is not just about how you drive: temperature matters as well.
I don't know either. The only part of the software that provides an estimate based on live data is on the range charts, and that will show you where your consumption is over or under the estimate and why.
As for temperature, this is true. As it is on piston cars - colder weather burns more fuel, wet weather too. Never mind the performance of the battery pack, this is still a car, and basic rolling dynamics still applies.
Battery efficiency falls off a cliff as temperature decreases though - hydrocarbon-fuelled systems gently reduce. Heating also slaughters EV efficiency at low temperatures - and in most hydrocarbon cars, that heat is 'free'.
I know you're very much an EV fan - but that doesn't mean that the tech doesn't have some significant downsides that cannot just be handwaved away.
Its most definitely a developing technology. And some manufacturers (of both cars and batteries) have nailed it, and others have not. There are an awful lot of videos out there of EVs which suffer "rapidgate" and "coldgate" effects - too much charging or too cold a temperature and battery performance falls off a cliff as you say.
That is shit design and engineering. Because it doesn't have to be that way. Tesla drivetrain has none of that. Nor Hyundai/Kia/Genesis. Supposedly the new Chinese brands like Polestar and MG have also got reliable battery performance.
if VAG / BMW / Stellantis etc have shitty battery performance, that is their fault, not the fault of the technology. Too many legacy manufacturers are doing this reluctantly, and don't seem to care about packaging or efficiency or performance.
How is that any different to piston cars where some manufacturers build reliable and efficient drivetrains, and JLR etc don't?
"And some manufacturers (of both cars and batteries) have nailed it, and others have not."
None of them have 'nailed' it, because they all use roughly similar battery chemistries, and that is where the fundamental issues lie. Some manufacturers have used good engineering to minimise the effects of these issues. But the issues are still there.
If the issues are still there, how it is that they are not?
This is not an issue of battery chemistry. This is an issue of battery management. Nissan knew that their battery packs needed active temperature management (heating / cooling) but didn't have an engineering solution. So they pretended it wasn't needed, and now Nissan are barely even in the EV game despite being a pioneer.
I am sure that I ran a Tesla in extreme heat or extreme cold, I would see more variation in performance. But in a moderate climate like ours I have seen no dramatic changes in efficiency whether it is hot or cold. Nor in charging performance. Wet roads have more of an impact on efficiency than temperature.
Manage the battery and there are no issues. Same as managing an engine.
Lordy. It is an issue of battery chemistry. You can engineer around it to a certain degree, but the fundamental limits are still there.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
I object to the inhumane treatment of people too. I’m just asking you what the miracle “safe route” is that you believe will solve it. Seriously, please enlighten me on your solution.
I'm still not convinced LAB will get an overall majority. No one likes CON anymore but very little real enthusiasm for Keir and LAB.
However if LAB get 300 - 320 then I think Davey and LD would be very happy to provide confidence and supply NOT coalition. So looks like Keir becomes PM after all.
Why wouldn't the LDs want to be in coalition government?
The last time they did it they lost 5/6ths of their MPs and their leader fucked off to California
That's because they got in bed with the Tories. Labour would be a better fit with most of their members and supporters.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
I object to the inhumane treatment of people too. I’m just asking you what the miracle “safe route” is that you believe will solve it. Seriously, please enlighten me on your solution.
His solution is: Let them all in, but do it safely
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
Why are they coming here from France to claim asylum in the first place? If they are desperate they should surely claim asylum at the first safe country they come to. Otherwise they're just here because they rightly think we're a soft touch, and because Macron, with breathtaking cynicism even for him, is not bothering to control his border.
C.twice as many refugees stay in France as in UK, six times as many in Germany. Are you saying that the UK should take none?
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
One of the Refugee charities has a proposal to fix the dinghy issue. The idea is to go to France and safely carry 10,000 asylum seekers to Britain where their claims can be properly and speedily processed. Apparently if this happens everyone else will think “OK that’s fair, I’ll give up trying to cross in a little boat, now”
That’s it. That’s the plan. Genius
The whole, "if we create safe and fair means for immigrants to apply from abroad and safe passage for them all this will go away" is equally bizarre. There may be a moral argument for such a policy but it has absolutely nothing to do with small boats or illegal immigration. It is a very deliberate distraction from the problem of how do we stop this?
It’s just a means for liberal lefties like @foxy and @Rochdale to pretend they have a humane solution, and allow them to continue feeling virtuous as they attack the Fascist Tories. It is of course, and as has been pointed out, no solution at all
Genuine question - do you think the Tories have a solution? Lets park the invective and look at what is actually happening.
No legal routes from Afghanistan. Despite all we have done to that country and leaving behind people who worked for us. Has it stopped them and others arriving? No.
There is no humane solution to people fleeing war and death and misery. Other than to invest heavily in those places to make them fit to live in. That would take global coordinated effort to deliver - and we're long past such a thing happening never mind Britain leading it.
I keep reading that Britain is a "soft touch". Really? Asylum seekers can't work. Get a pre-paid card with £little on it to pay for food and clothes and essentials. Get interned in all kinds of places where the locals don't want them. In limbo for years whilst the Home Office goes about its slow process.
We don't offer a soft touch. The opposite. And I am very happy to discuss workable solutions to this problem. The problem is that its a culture wars wedge issue and the facts have gone out the window.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
One of the Refugee charities has a proposal to fix the dinghy issue. The idea is to go to France and safely carry 10,000 asylum seekers to Britain where their claims can be properly and speedily processed. Apparently if this happens everyone else will think “OK that’s fair, I’ll give up trying to cross in a little boat, now”
That’s it. That’s the plan. Genius
The whole, "if we create safe and fair means for immigrants to apply from abroad and safe passage for them all this will go away" is equally bizarre. There may be a moral argument for such a policy but it has absolutely nothing to do with small boats or illegal immigration. It is a very deliberate distraction from the problem of how do we stop this?
It’s just a means for liberal lefties like @foxy and @Rochdale to pretend they have a humane solution, and allow them to continue feeling virtuous as they attack the Fascist Tories. It is of course, and as has been pointed out, no solution at all
On the contrary, it is a straightforward approach to the problem of not being able to apply for asylum without entering the country first.
There is precedent too, for Afghan and Ukranian refugees, and also on a small scale for Syrian.
I'm still not convinced LAB will get an overall majority. No one likes CON anymore but very little real enthusiasm for Keir and LAB.
However if LAB get 300 - 320 then I think Davey and LD would be very happy to provide confidence and supply NOT coalition. So looks like Keir becomes PM after all.
Why wouldn't the LDs want to be in coalition government?
The last time they did it they lost 5/6ths of their MPs and their leader fucked off to California
That's because they got in bed with the Tories. Labour would be a better fit with most of their members and supporters.
They've been in formal coalition with Labour before - in Scotland. Disastrous for them as well, [edit] after a first term or two in which they thought they'd managed to fiddle the voting system for good to their benefit. They've never yet recovered.
"Tesla has consistently exaggerated the driving range of its electric vehicles, reportedly leading car owners to think something was broken when actual driving range was much lower than advertised. When these owners scheduled service appointments to fix the problem, Tesla canceled the appointments because there was no way to improve the actual distance Tesla cars could drive between charges, according to an investigation by Reuters.
In mid-2022, Tesla started routing range complaints to a "Diversion Team" that fielded up to 2,000 cases a week and "was expected to close about 750 cases a week," Reuters reported."
How does that work? Tesla displays two sets of data - percentage state of charge, and range based on WLTP. I always have it set on percentage because the WLTP guessometer is always nonsense.
I'm on quite a few Facebook forums and there's usually a clash between "I just got my Tesla and it does half the advertised range" and "mine does more than the advertised range". As with any car, it depends on how you drive. I don't get the advertised range because I spend too much of the time hoofing it.
I don't know. If you read the article, then it seems there is a fair amount of evidence of the issue.
And one point made in the article is that it is not just about how you drive: temperature matters as well.
I don't know either. The only part of the software that provides an estimate based on live data is on the range charts, and that will show you where your consumption is over or under the estimate and why.
As for temperature, this is true. As it is on piston cars - colder weather burns more fuel, wet weather too. Never mind the performance of the battery pack, this is still a car, and basic rolling dynamics still applies.
Battery efficiency falls off a cliff as temperature decreases though - hydrocarbon-fuelled systems gently reduce. Heating also slaughters EV efficiency at low temperatures - and in most hydrocarbon cars, that heat is 'free'.
I know you're very much an EV fan - but that doesn't mean that the tech doesn't have some significant downsides that cannot just be handwaved away.
Its most definitely a developing technology. And some manufacturers (of both cars and batteries) have nailed it, and others have not. There are an awful lot of videos out there of EVs which suffer "rapidgate" and "coldgate" effects - too much charging or too cold a temperature and battery performance falls off a cliff as you say.
That is shit design and engineering. Because it doesn't have to be that way. Tesla drivetrain has none of that. Nor Hyundai/Kia/Genesis. Supposedly the new Chinese brands like Polestar and MG have also got reliable battery performance.
if VAG / BMW / Stellantis etc have shitty battery performance, that is their fault, not the fault of the technology. Too many legacy manufacturers are doing this reluctantly, and don't seem to care about packaging or efficiency or performance.
How is that any different to piston cars where some manufacturers build reliable and efficient drivetrains, and JLR etc don't?
"And some manufacturers (of both cars and batteries) have nailed it, and others have not."
None of them have 'nailed' it, because they all use roughly similar battery chemistries, and that is where the fundamental issues lie. Some manufacturers have used good engineering to minimise the effects of these issues. But the issues are still there.
If the issues are still there, how it is that they are not?
This is not an issue of battery chemistry. This is an issue of battery management. Nissan knew that their battery packs needed active temperature management (heating / cooling) but didn't have an engineering solution. So they pretended it wasn't needed, and now Nissan are barely even in the EV game despite being a pioneer.
I am sure that I ran a Tesla in extreme heat or extreme cold, I would see more variation in performance. But in a moderate climate like ours I have seen no dramatic changes in efficiency whether it is hot or cold. Nor in charging performance. Wet roads have more of an impact on efficiency than temperature.
Manage the battery and there are no issues. Same as managing an engine.
I can't say I've noticed any issues with the battery in my Nissan Leaf, despite it lacking temperature control. For my purposes - mostly pottering around town with the occasional longish trip - it works just fine.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
I object to the inhumane treatment of people too. I’m just asking you what the miracle “safe route” is that you believe will solve it. Seriously, please enlighten me on your solution.
His solution is: Let them all in, but do it safely
You don't have a solution either. You just favour cruelty and inefficiency (the current arrangement) over any alternative ideas.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
I object to the inhumane treatment of people too. I’m just asking you what the miracle “safe route” is that you believe will solve it. Seriously, please enlighten me on your solution.
Question - do you know how asylum actually works? People arrive in the UK and at the border or having crossed it say they want to claim asylum.
The "miracle safe route" is to arrive on a ferry. A plane. On a train. Like normal people do. And don't say "how will they pay for that" - they may a lot more to criminals with small boats.
They are coming here anyway. In ever larger numbers. And yet still in a volume many multiples smaller than most of our neighbours. So we should be able to cope when the French manage twice as many. Or are we saying we're twice as shit as France?
A while ago someone here (maybe Sandpit) said: why not put the illegal crossers staight back on a ferry to Calais? Is this not the patently obvious solution?
The reason is that a country is obliged by international conventions to process the claim of a person claiming asylum and, contrary to popular myth, there is no requirement for them to claim asylum in the first safe country they pass through.
So a person is entirely able to travel through France and other countries without claiming asylum, to arrive at the UK, and do so there. Reasons commonly include linguistic links or having family or other support networks in the UK.
It should be said that most don't - about 70% go to an immediately neighbouring country, France has many more asylum claims than the UK etc.
"Public must be spared huge burden of net zero, says Tony Blair Former PM says UK can play its part in climate change fight but its efforts risk being dwarfed by impact of countries such as China"
"Tesla has consistently exaggerated the driving range of its electric vehicles, reportedly leading car owners to think something was broken when actual driving range was much lower than advertised. When these owners scheduled service appointments to fix the problem, Tesla canceled the appointments because there was no way to improve the actual distance Tesla cars could drive between charges, according to an investigation by Reuters.
In mid-2022, Tesla started routing range complaints to a "Diversion Team" that fielded up to 2,000 cases a week and "was expected to close about 750 cases a week," Reuters reported."
How does that work? Tesla displays two sets of data - percentage state of charge, and range based on WLTP. I always have it set on percentage because the WLTP guessometer is always nonsense.
I'm on quite a few Facebook forums and there's usually a clash between "I just got my Tesla and it does half the advertised range" and "mine does more than the advertised range". As with any car, it depends on how you drive. I don't get the advertised range because I spend too much of the time hoofing it.
I don't know. If you read the article, then it seems there is a fair amount of evidence of the issue.
And one point made in the article is that it is not just about how you drive: temperature matters as well.
I don't know either. The only part of the software that provides an estimate based on live data is on the range charts, and that will show you where your consumption is over or under the estimate and why.
As for temperature, this is true. As it is on piston cars - colder weather burns more fuel, wet weather too. Never mind the performance of the battery pack, this is still a car, and basic rolling dynamics still applies.
Battery efficiency falls off a cliff as temperature decreases though - hydrocarbon-fuelled systems gently reduce. Heating also slaughters EV efficiency at low temperatures - and in most hydrocarbon cars, that heat is 'free'.
I know you're very much an EV fan - but that doesn't mean that the tech doesn't have some significant downsides that cannot just be handwaved away.
Its most definitely a developing technology. And some manufacturers (of both cars and batteries) have nailed it, and others have not. There are an awful lot of videos out there of EVs which suffer "rapidgate" and "coldgate" effects - too much charging or too cold a temperature and battery performance falls off a cliff as you say.
That is shit design and engineering. Because it doesn't have to be that way. Tesla drivetrain has none of that. Nor Hyundai/Kia/Genesis. Supposedly the new Chinese brands like Polestar and MG have also got reliable battery performance.
if VAG / BMW / Stellantis etc have shitty battery performance, that is their fault, not the fault of the technology. Too many legacy manufacturers are doing this reluctantly, and don't seem to care about packaging or efficiency or performance.
How is that any different to piston cars where some manufacturers build reliable and efficient drivetrains, and JLR etc don't?
"And some manufacturers (of both cars and batteries) have nailed it, and others have not."
None of them have 'nailed' it, because they all use roughly similar battery chemistries, and that is where the fundamental issues lie. Some manufacturers have used good engineering to minimise the effects of these issues. But the issues are still there.
If the issues are still there, how it is that they are not?
This is not an issue of battery chemistry. This is an issue of battery management. Nissan knew that their battery packs needed active temperature management (heating / cooling) but didn't have an engineering solution. So they pretended it wasn't needed, and now Nissan are barely even in the EV game despite being a pioneer.
I am sure that I ran a Tesla in extreme heat or extreme cold, I would see more variation in performance. But in a moderate climate like ours I have seen no dramatic changes in efficiency whether it is hot or cold. Nor in charging performance. Wet roads have more of an impact on efficiency than temperature.
Manage the battery and there are no issues. Same as managing an engine.
I can't say I've noticed any issues with the battery in my Nissan Leaf, despite it lacking temperature control. For my purposes - mostly pottering around town with the occasional longish trip - it works just fine.
And the "pottering about" trips are what EVs are ideal for atm. Which is good, because many cars only ever make 'pottering about' journeys. If you do large distances, they're not ideal. But I expect that to change soon.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
One of the Refugee charities has a proposal to fix the dinghy issue. The idea is to go to France and safely carry 10,000 asylum seekers to Britain where their claims can be properly and speedily processed. Apparently if this happens everyone else will think “OK that’s fair, I’ll give up trying to cross in a little boat, now”
That’s it. That’s the plan. Genius
The whole, "if we create safe and fair means for immigrants to apply from abroad and safe passage for them all this will go away" is equally bizarre. There may be a moral argument for such a policy but it has absolutely nothing to do with small boats or illegal immigration. It is a very deliberate distraction from the problem of how do we stop this?
The quid pro quo would be that we did rule that anyone who applied by boat crossing would be refused asylum, , on the grounds that they had failed to make an application by the established routes (processing centres, embassies and by post). It would not deal with the challenges of masses of applications, but it would make the small boats option unattractive - why risk your life for the certainty of refusal when there is a legal option readily available?
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
I object to the inhumane treatment of people too. I’m just asking you what the miracle “safe route” is that you believe will solve it. Seriously, please enlighten me on your solution.
His solution is: Let them all in, but do it safely
You don't have a solution either. You just favour cruelty and inefficiency (the current arrangement) over any alternative ideas.
No, I favour Rwanda (or somewhere similar). But actually DO IT. Properly. As Australia did
You can’t say “it won’t work” because we’re so pathetic we’ve not even tried it. Let’s try it. If it fails, we think again
Is it cruel? Yes. But it is much LESS cruel than what we have now, and if successful it will solve the problem entirely, unlike these ridiculous non-solution solutions from the likes of @Rochdale et al
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
So, send them to Rwanda
It could be that enthusiasm for this 'solution' is driven by a genuine belief that it's the least bad of a range of bad options. Or it could be that it's driven by a subliminal feeling that 'they' are not quite as fully human as the 'us' here debating it.
It's hard to know for sure because the 1st will always be claimed and the 2nd never admitted to.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
I object to the inhumane treatment of people too. I’m just asking you what the miracle “safe route” is that you believe will solve it. Seriously, please enlighten me on your solution.
His solution is: Let them all in, but do it safely
Can you define "all"? Most refugees do not come to Britain. Far more stay close to their home nation, especially when fleeing from war. Turkey and Greece saw millions of Syrians arrive. Poland has taken the brunt of fleeing Ukrainians.
Europe is a draw from people fleeing poverty and war in Africa and elsewhere. Arriving into Greece and Italy in vast numbers. A proportion of those leave and spread into other European countries, most do not come to the UK.
So "all" are not trying to get in. Its a few when compared to Italy or Poland or Greece or Germany (6x the UK) or France (2x) the UK. We keep being told that refugees should stay in France. Not because of international law or anything like that. Because some Tory politician has lied that the law states they have to. But even so, twice as many do stay in France than come to the UK.
So again, can you define "all"? Having set that word aside, we then look at the actual numbers actually arriving. Despite all the STOP THE BOATS measures we have done no such thing. We've had several rounds of increasingly hard-line Immigration Bills over the last few years, yet their impact has been zero. "let them all in" is a practical description of how the government's policies work in practice...
I'm still not convinced LAB will get an overall majority. No one likes CON anymore but very little real enthusiasm for Keir and LAB.
However if LAB get 300 - 320 then I think Davey and LD would be very happy to provide confidence and supply NOT coalition. So looks like Keir becomes PM after all.
Why wouldn't the LDs want to be in coalition government?
The last time they did it they lost 5/6ths of their MPs and their leader fucked off to California
That's because they got in bed with the Tories. Labour would be a better fit with most of their members and supporters.
Orange Book LDs are closer to Cameronite Tories, social democrat LDs are closer to Starmer Labour
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
I object to the inhumane treatment of people too. I’m just asking you what the miracle “safe route” is that you believe will solve it. Seriously, please enlighten me on your solution.
Question - do you know how asylum actually works? People arrive in the UK and at the border or having crossed it say they want to claim asylum.
The "miracle safe route" is to arrive on a ferry. A plane. On a train. Like normal people do. And don't say "how will they pay for that" - they may a lot more to criminals with small boats.
They are coming here anyway. In ever larger numbers. And yet still in a volume many multiples smaller than most of our neighbours. So we should be able to cope when the French manage twice as many. Or are we saying we're twice as shit as France?
Ok, so the safe route is to arrive on a ferry or a plane and claim asylum. Why are small boat arrivals happening? It apparently costs more than a jet2 flight. So if you can afford to come on a small boat, risk your life and risk never getting asylum why do that rather than the safe route?
Just want it noted that I am in a ridiculously pleasant 4 star hotel, in a very pretty old Bukovinan Ukrainian city. With a fine restaurant, chic bar, etc
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
So, send them to Rwanda
It could be that enthusiasm for this 'solution' is driven by a genuine belief that it's the least bad of a range of bad options. Or it could be that it's driven by a subliminal feeling that 'they' are not quite as fully human as the 'us' here debating it.
It's hard to know for sure because the 1st will always be claimed and the 2nd never admitted to.
I don't think Rwanda is even intended as a solution. It's a political touchstone where you are for it or against it on ideological grounds. And where the people behind the idea think it's a wedge that will benefit them politically.
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
One of the Refugee charities has a proposal to fix the dinghy issue. The idea is to go to France and safely carry 10,000 asylum seekers to Britain where their claims can be properly and speedily processed. Apparently if this happens everyone else will think “OK that’s fair, I’ll give up trying to cross in a little boat, now”
That’s it. That’s the plan. Genius
The whole, "if we create safe and fair means for immigrants to apply from abroad and safe passage for them all this will go away" is equally bizarre. There may be a moral argument for such a policy but it has absolutely nothing to do with small boats or illegal immigration. It is a very deliberate distraction from the problem of how do we stop this?
The quid pro quo would be that we did rule that anyone who applied by boat crossing would be refused asylum, , on the grounds that they had failed to make an application by the established routes (processing centres, embassies and by post). It would not deal with the challenges of masses of applications, but it would make the small boats option unattractive - why risk your life for the certainty of refusal when there is a legal option readily available?
The whole small boats thing only really took off when we paid France to build massive walls to stop them jumping into lorries. Take the walls down.......
Suella Braverman has bought tents to accommodate up to 2,000 migrants on disused military sites by the end of August as part of emergency plans to avoid the expensive process of last-minute hotel bookings.
The marquees, which have been procured by the Home Office in the past few days, will start to be erected over the coming weeks as part of contingency plans to deal with an expected surge of small boat arrivals.
Look, Suella, when Rishi said he needed a solution that would go better in canvassing, that wasn't what he meant.
It probably was.
What Suella would really like is the “ final solution “ one can only imagine the joy she’d derive from seeing the “ boat people “ shipped off to the nearest oven .
That’s rather an unpleasant post
And probably libellous
Unpleasant yes. Libellous no. Can people please understand the law before screeching on about libel?
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
I think a court would find “honest opinion” implausible in this case.
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
It'll be so funny when we get a Labour government (hopefully soon), and they start proposing similar measures - as their plans have utterly failed. Of course, their measures would be *totally* different, and will be surrounded with warm, fuzzy feels, so it'll all be okay.
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As you say, this is a global problem. We either work with our European partners or we don't - and not doing so has us in the mess we are in. The level of embedded lies is also a problem. Tory politicians and their tabloid shills endlessly lie about how many refugees we take. In reality we take far less than France or Germany, and multitudes less than Greece or Poland.
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
These legal routes - what is your solution? Do we have processing centres just over the border from conflict states which act as a further drag to those states and exacerbate their problems with the number of refugees they already have?
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
Fascinating psychology at play here.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
I object to the inhumane treatment of people too. I’m just asking you what the miracle “safe route” is that you believe will solve it. Seriously, please enlighten me on your solution.
His solution is: Let them all in, but do it safely
You don't have a solution either. You just favour cruelty and inefficiency (the current arrangement) over any alternative ideas.
No, I favour Rwanda (or somewhere similar). But actually DO IT. Properly. As Australia did
You can’t say “it won’t work” because we’re so pathetic we’ve not even tried it. Let’s try it. If it fails, we think again
Is it cruel? Yes. But it is much LESS cruel than what we have now, and if successful it will solve the problem entirely, unlike these ridiculous non-solution solutions from the likes of @Rochdale et al
It does sound a bit stroppy old love. @NickPalmer just calmly set out the alternative in a single paragraph, you the right always says YOU HAVE NO PLAN. There is a plan, you just need to claim there isn't for the culture wars bit.
I think your anger on this issue is that you have seen the Australian solution and decided its what we should do. I don't have a problem with that - if we actually had our own version to do.
Rwanda can't and won't take the numbers we have. To send them to Rwanda we have to legally declare them invalid which we can't do as no capacity in either criminal justice or the Home Office. To send them to court we have to process and reject their claims which we can't do as no staff at the Home Office. To process them we need to hold them securely which we can't do as nowhere to house them and every Tory MP objects to their constituency being used (refugee NIMBYism). To house them we need to capture them on arrival which we struggle to do as lack of Border Force / Home Office / Navy.
Australia has a system, which it resources and executes. We have a pack of crayons and a slogan on a lectern. I understand your annoyance, but you're aiming it at the wrong person.
A while ago someone here (maybe Sandpit) said: why not put the illegal crossers staight back on a ferry to Calais? Is this not the patently obvious solution?
My comment was that your average Briton, who isn’t paying daily attention to politics, doesn’t understand why the UK can’t simply round up irregular arrivals and drop them at Dover, with a ticket on the first ferrry back from whence they came.
Personally, I’m in favour of any solution that stops people risking their lives in unsuitable boats, and that doesn’t leave a pull factor for the traffickers.
I suspect that a combination of allowing asylum claims from embassies abroad, funding of temporary refugee camps near war zones, and the Rwanda option for all irregular arrivals, is where we end up.
Comments
https://news.sky.com/story/dramatic-rise-in-looting-and-staff-abuse-at-co-op-shops-in-past-year-12928185
And talking of Blair he warns today against asking the public to do a huge amount to tackle climate change saying Britain net zero efforts cannot solve global warming alone
Good to hear a politician talking sense for once
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/07/27/spare-public-huge-burden-of-net-zero-says-tony-blair/
I'll give you a clue. "Honest Opinion".
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/27/muslim-leaders-decry-double-standard-of-farage-bank-account-closure-furore
And I was not “screeching”. Gently admonishing, may be
Romanian: Cernăuți ([tʃernəˈutsʲ]; German: Czernowitz ([ˈtʃɛɐ̯novɪts]; Polish: Czerniowce; Hungarian: Csernovic, Yiddish: טשערנאָוויץ, romanized: Tshernovits, Russian: Черновцы́, romanized: Chernovtsy, (In Russian until 1944: Чернови́цы, romanized: Chernovitsy). In the times of Halych-Volyn Principality the city's name was Chern. A variant Russian name is Chernov'tsi (Russian: Черновьци).
Right now the Ukrainians call it “Chernivtsi”: Чернівці́
It’s really rather pretty
I'm on quite a few Facebook forums and there's usually a clash between "I just got my Tesla and it does half the advertised range" and "mine does more than the advertised range". As with any car, it depends on how you drive. I don't get the advertised range because I spend too much of the time hoofing it.
Meanwhile, real world testing puts the Model 3 top of Carwow's most efficient EV's review https://www.carwow.co.uk/electric-cars/efficient#gref
And one point made in the article is that it is not just about how you drive: temperature matters as well.
AML laws shouldn’t have to affect this happening as if a bank thinks they have a money launderer, terrorist, drug dealer with an account then the more sensible option is that they have immunity once it’s reported to the authorities so that the account keeps operating while the investigation and intelligence gathering goes on and the account can be frozen if or when charges are made.
This has been going on for a long time, it is good someone with a high profile and the determination to do something about it has done something.
Stories like this have been commonplace in the financial pages for years. IF people can see past their "it's only Farage, so it's okay, as I don't like him" mindset they may see he is doing a bit of a public service.
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-12340459/CRANE-CASE-vulnerable-laws-got-debanked-HSBC.html
00:00 today:
📡 Оцінка обстановки станом на 00:00
— Стратегічна авіація не активна.
На ае "Енгельс" розміщено 3х борти Ту-22м3, споряджені 3 ракетами Х-22 загалом;
На ае "Шайковка" розміщено 8х бортів Ту-22м3, споряджені 9 ракетами Х-22 загалом;
— Інформація про запуск ударних БпЛА типу "Шахед" не надходила.
— В акваторії Чорного моря присутній ракетоносій із можливістю несення до 4х КРМБ типу "Калібр".
Ситуація може змінитись впродовж ночі, дослухайтесь сигналів повітряної тривоги.
@war_monitor
The issue is simple: people are trying to get into the UK and Europe for a variety of reasons. We can either let them all in, or we must have procedures and processes that allow some to be returned. For a variety of reasons, the latter approach is difficult. And as most western European countries have similar issues, just handing them back over to (say) France is not workable on a large scale.
And any government saying "Let everyone in!" would likely get slaughtered at the polls.
As for temperature, this is true. As it is on piston cars - colder weather burns more fuel, wet weather too. Never mind the performance of the battery pack, this is still a car, and basic rolling dynamics still applies.
That’s it. That’s the plan. Genius
So many of the desperate people on boats are only on a boat because there is no legal way to come here to claim asylum. Open a legal route and much of the boat traffic stops. We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system.
In order to patent something, you have to make it clear to the world.
I know you're very much an EV fan - but that doesn't mean that the tech doesn't have some significant downsides that cannot just be handwaved away.
Currently we endure literal thousands coming across every few days. We're now looking at increasingly silly and expensive ways to house them whilst they get processed. So STOP THE BOATS has only made the boats come faster - because there are no legal routes.
So why not honour our debt to Afghans and open up a legal route to claim asylum? They're coming anyway.
There is a law and order (and proper funding thereof) side to this which, combined with reasonable safe routes for refugees, constitutes a way forward.
F1: qualifying's at 4pm today, because of the sprint bullshit.
1. They’ll keep crossing even if we provide legal routes as well
2. Cross channel legal routes on top of illegal crossings will only add to the pull factor (you’ve now got two ways to cross, potentially)
Do you find everyday life challenging? Making tea, etc?
That is shit design and engineering. Because it doesn't have to be that way. Tesla drivetrain has none of that. Nor Hyundai/Kia/Genesis. Supposedly the new Chinese brands like Polestar and MG have also got reliable battery performance.
if VAG / BMW / Stellantis etc have shitty battery performance, that is their fault, not the fault of the technology. Too many legacy manufacturers are doing this reluctantly, and don't seem to care about packaging or efficiency or performance.
How is that any different to piston cars where some manufacturers build reliable and efficient drivetrains, and JLR etc don't?
https://twitter.com/ozzymanreviews/status/1086224450918334469?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
Do we have processing centres at our embassies in troubled countries where people come and make their application for asylum which will make life easier for the authorities to stick a van with a camera team outside the embassy seeing who is trying to escape?
Do we set up a processing centre in Calais which will act as a draw to people to head to Calais and overwhelm the local infrastructure whilst waiting for their application to be processed? I hear the people of the Calais region are crying out for such a magnet.
Maybe processing centres on the North African coast before they get on boats across the Med. I hear these countries are very welcoming to sub- Saharan Africans these days, the joy in the voices of those residents of Tunisia the bbc interviewed the other week was a joy to behold.
Please could you outline what a safe route for application is which doesn’t create an extra draw to another country who have to deal with the burden it creates?
"The UK committed to providing €72.2 million for UK–French border control (around £62.2 million) in 2022/23. A Joint Leaders' Declaration issued after the UK–France leaders' summit in March 2023 included further financial commitments for the UK: around £476 million between 2023/24 and 2025/26."
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9681/
" We then need to hold and quickly process people - which we don't because the Tories have gutted the Home Office and legal system."
I agree with this. But I fear it ignores the fact that the numbers coming over have increased vastly over the last five years. I fail to see how we can increase the systems to cope with the massive influx.
If you want an example on the politics of this, look at prison ships. Often proposed (or used) as an emergency measure by governments and lambasted by the opposition. And then proposed by that opposition when they get power, and lambasted by the new opposition who quite liked them when they were in power...
In the meantime they would be living abroad, and not at UK expense. If they were refused then they could legally be deported on arrival should they attempt a crossing. It would also then be reasonable to enquire of any arrival on a small boat why they did not apply to the British Embassy in Paris etc, and if they have no valid reason, refuse on those grounds.
Concerning for other reasons too, including the fight against Islamist terror and loss of a major miner of Uranium.
You wouldn’t. You’d whine about it. And the small boats sans papiers would keep coming, anyway
None of them have 'nailed' it, because they all use roughly similar battery chemistries, and that is where the fundamental issues lie. Some manufacturers have used good engineering to minimise the effects of these issues. But the issues are still there.
Vance sends a ‘wokeness’ questionnaire to State nominees
Holds from Sens. J.D. Vance and Rand Paul are a major reason dozens of U.S. ambassadorships and other State Department roles are vacant.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/27/vance-sends-a-wokeness-questionnaire-to-state-nominees-00108608
Is this not the patently obvious solution?
Prisons have a duty of care to inmates health so I'd have thought this case would be a fairly quick and easy one for the courts to find against the prison.
corporate virtue signalling which, since last February, has weaponised Russophobia for the sake of moral posturing.
https://twitter.com/mrevgenylebedev/status/1684629624582467585
This is not an issue of battery chemistry. This is an issue of battery management. Nissan knew that their battery packs needed active temperature management (heating / cooling) but didn't have an engineering solution. So they pretended it wasn't needed, and now Nissan are barely even in the EV game despite being a pioneer.
I am sure that I ran a Tesla in extreme heat or extreme cold, I would see more variation in performance. But in a moderate climate like ours I have seen no dramatic changes in efficiency whether it is hot or cold. Nor in charging performance. Wet roads have more of an impact on efficiency than temperature.
Manage the battery and there are no issues. Same as managing an engine.
This whole “safe routes” sounds great until it hits the reality of the fact that the people you impose this on don’t want the migrants either. It makes people feel fluffy that there is some magic “safe route” but I never hear a solution that doesn’t mean pissing off another country which will then ensure they do everything to deter people using it and camping in their parks rather than welcome them in and draw even more people.
That will mean a significant jump in both energy capacity and reliability (and will also allow faster charging).
And as for Macron's cynicism, I don't think we try to stop people leaving the country, do we?
Three others: media and public/voter opinion. And being a western civilised country.
It is obvious to the feeblest intellect that no solution is possible as long as all those facts are in place.
Do we just say, “no worries, jump on a plane and when you arrive we will put you up somewhere until we process you” - we can’t even house the homeless properly yet alone the tens of thousands who would arrive.
What do you mean "would arrive". They DO arrive. In the numbers you describe. You and the Tories talk as if the current system works and any other proposal would not. What we have now is completely overwhelming waves of people arriving, nowhere to put them, no way to process them AND we force them to risk their lives.
I don't have specific objections to tents or barracks or barges being proposed to house them - no different to the refugee tent cities that spring up "just over the border from the conflict state" as you put it.
What I object to is the inhuman treatment of people. There is no point in having zero ways to arrive legally. It doesn't stop them. We can't deport them. We can't repel them. We can't shut the border (lack of staff). And yet we still have people drowning and almost drowning. A choice we have made to "deter". It doesn't deter.
LFP chemistry batteries, for example, perform worse when cold than do other types on the market.
Some of the solid state prototypes operate efficiently at Arctic temperatures. That, and their much greater energy capacity, ought to see the issue disappear before the decade is out.
we we we we we we we
No legal routes from Afghanistan. Despite all we have done to that country and leaving behind people who worked for us. Has it stopped them and others arriving? No.
There is no humane solution to people fleeing war and death and misery. Other than to invest heavily in those places to make them fit to live in. That would take global coordinated effort to deliver - and we're long past such a thing happening never mind Britain leading it.
I keep reading that Britain is a "soft touch". Really? Asylum seekers can't work. Get a pre-paid card with £little on it to pay for food and clothes and essentials. Get interned in all kinds of places where the locals don't want them. In limbo for years whilst the Home Office goes about its slow process.
We don't offer a soft touch. The opposite. And I am very happy to discuss workable solutions to this problem. The problem is that its a culture wars wedge issue and the facts have gone out the window.
There is precedent too, for Afghan and Ukranian refugees, and also on a small scale for Syrian.
Edit: circumstances alter cases, sure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxrWuE5qC5c
You just favour cruelty and inefficiency (the current arrangement) over any alternative ideas.
The "miracle safe route" is to arrive on a ferry. A plane. On a train. Like normal people do. And don't say "how will they pay for that" - they may a lot more to criminals with small boats.
They are coming here anyway. In ever larger numbers. And yet still in a volume many multiples smaller than most of our neighbours. So we should be able to cope when the French manage twice as many. Or are we saying we're twice as shit as France?
So a person is entirely able to travel through France and other countries without claiming asylum, to arrive at the UK, and do so there. Reasons commonly include linguistic links or having family or other support networks in the UK.
It should be said that most don't - about 70% go to an immediately neighbouring country, France has many more asylum claims than the UK etc.
Former PM says UK can play its part in climate change fight but its efforts risk being dwarfed by impact of countries such as China"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/07/27/spare-public-huge-burden-of-net-zero-says-tony-blair/
More and more people arrive here each year by one means or another and we actually don't want to stop them. Because if we did we would have.
Once that truth has been digested we can move on to other topics more productively.
You can’t say “it won’t work” because we’re so pathetic we’ve not even tried it. Let’s try it. If it fails, we think again
Is it cruel? Yes. But it is much LESS cruel than what we have now, and if successful it will solve the problem entirely, unlike these ridiculous non-solution solutions from the likes of @Rochdale et al
It's hard to know for sure because the 1st will always be claimed and the 2nd never admitted to.
Europe is a draw from people fleeing poverty and war in Africa and elsewhere. Arriving into Greece and Italy in vast numbers. A proportion of those leave and spread into other European countries, most do not come to the UK.
So "all" are not trying to get in. Its a few when compared to Italy or Poland or Greece or Germany (6x the UK) or France (2x) the UK. We keep being told that refugees should stay in France. Not because of international law or anything like that. Because some Tory politician has lied that the law states they have to. But even so, twice as many do stay in France than come to the UK.
So again, can you define "all"? Having set that word aside, we then look at the actual numbers actually arriving. Despite all the STOP THE BOATS measures we have done no such thing. We've had several rounds of increasingly hard-line Immigration Bills over the last few years, yet their impact has been zero. "let them all in" is a practical description of how the government's policies work in practice...
Politicians dont want to stop it, that is not the same as the UK doesn't want to stop it
Relatedly I have a great idea. Let's make murder illegal. Plus while we're at it robbery, assault, speeding, and listening to R*d**h**d.
I'm sure it will transform our society.
Surrounded by amazing history. Nice spa, as well
Price? £30 a night
War!! Ooof. UGH UGH. What is it GOOD FOR????
Er, hotel prices?
I think your anger on this issue is that you have seen the Australian solution and decided its what we should do. I don't have a problem with that - if we actually had our own version to do.
Rwanda can't and won't take the numbers we have. To send them to Rwanda we have to legally declare them invalid which we can't do as no capacity in either criminal justice or the Home Office. To send them to court we have to process and reject their claims which we can't do as no staff at the Home Office. To process them we need to hold them securely which we can't do as nowhere to house them and every Tory MP objects to their constituency being used (refugee NIMBYism). To house them we need to capture them on arrival which we struggle to do as lack of Border Force / Home Office / Navy.
Australia has a system, which it resources and executes. We have a pack of crayons and a slogan on a lectern. I understand your annoyance, but you're aiming it at the wrong person.
Personally, I’m in favour of any solution that stops people risking their lives in unsuitable boats, and that doesn’t leave a pull factor for the traffickers.
I suspect that a combination of allowing asylum claims from embassies abroad, funding of temporary refugee camps near war zones, and the Rwanda option for all irregular arrivals, is where we end up.