The Mirror's tone deaf Tories,,,, whether or not Starmer was a bit quick to jump on it, Sunak certainly comes out of it looking a bit crXp. I can sense a dirty GE campaign coming.
With all the caveats - this is one case, it’s the Daily Mail (so may be at least half true), etc etc this is a good example of why ordinary people get frustrated by the asylum system
* Fled Syria in 2014 to avoid being called up. Ok, seems reasonable * Settled in Germany where he had family. Makes sense * 3 years ago he rowed with his family because he drinks and smokes and they said that means he’s not a good Muslim. Hmmh. Seems unlikely… may be @TheScreamingEagles can comment * To quote him: 'I thought the UK would be a good place to find work in the construction industry, I am a talented plasterer,'
In what world is someone who was settled for 5+ years in Germany and has admitted that they are coming to the UK to find work a potential asylum claimant. And how has it taken 3 years to make that determination?
This isn’t a comment on the level of immigration or the need for people to do jobs. It’s a comment on the breakdown is the asylum process. If you want legal immigration that should be separate
Had Starmer made such an egregious error as Sunak at PMQs, the Times, Telegraph, Mail, Express, Sun and Star would have shared the same lead.
Maybe, although these papers have not splashed Labour dropping the £28 billion green pledge which had allegedly been pencilled in as the Conservatives' next attack line.
With all the caveats - this is one case, it’s the Daily Mail (so may be at least half true), etc etc this is a good example of why ordinary people get frustrated by the asylum system
* Fled Syria in 2014 to avoid being called up. Ok, seems reasonable * Settled in Germany where he had family. Makes sense * 3 years ago he rowed with his family because he drinks and smokes and they said that means he’s not a good Muslim. Hmmh. Seems unlikely… may be @TheScreamingEagles can comment * To quote him: 'I thought the UK would be a good place to find work in the construction industry, I am a talented plasterer,'
In what world is someone who was settled for 5+ years in Germany and has admitted that they are coming to the UK to find work a potential asylum claimant. And how has it taken 3 years to make that determination?
This isn’t a comment on the level of immigration or the need for people to do jobs. It’s a comment on the breakdown is the asylum process. If you want legal immigration that should be separate
With all the caveats - this is one case, it’s the Daily Mail (so may be at least half true), etc etc this is a good example of why ordinary people get frustrated by the asylum system
* Fled Syria in 2014 to avoid being called up. Ok, seems reasonable * Settled in Germany where he had family. Makes sense * 3 years ago he rowed with his family because he drinks and smokes and they said that means he’s not a good Muslim. Hmmh. Seems unlikely… may be @TheScreamingEagles can comment * To quote him: 'I thought the UK would be a good place to find work in the construction industry, I am a talented plasterer,'
In what world is someone who was settled for 5+ years in Germany and has admitted that they are coming to the UK to find work a potential asylum claimant. And how has it taken 3 years to make that determination?
This isn’t a comment on the level of immigration or the need for people to do jobs. It’s a comment on the breakdown is the asylum process. If you want legal immigration that should be separate
With all the caveats - this is one case, it’s the Daily Mail (so may be at least half true), etc etc this is a good example of why ordinary people get frustrated by the asylum system
* Fled Syria in 2014 to avoid being called up. Ok, seems reasonable * Settled in Germany where he had family. Makes sense * 3 years ago he rowed with his family because he drinks and smokes and they said that means he’s not a good Muslim. Hmmh. Seems unlikely… may be @TheScreamingEagles can comment * To quote him: 'I thought the UK would be a good place to find work in the construction industry, I am a talented plasterer,'
In what world is someone who was settled for 5+ years in Germany and has admitted that they are coming to the UK to find work a potential asylum claimant. And how has it taken 3 years to make that determination?
This isn’t a comment on the level of immigration or the need for people to do jobs. It’s a comment on the breakdown is the asylum process. If you want legal immigration that should be separate
This is what the internationally-agreed rules say, so you can put it the other way around and ask: Aside from the rowing boat issue, would the system be better if someone who escaped to a safe country had to remain in that safe country and couldn't go further away from the place they're fleeing? I think it would be worse because countries closer to the source of a crisis generally have more people showing up, so if there's a threshold where there are too many people showing up for a country to cope, it's better if the people involved spread themselves further into different countries.
I think British anti-immigration people would understand this if Britain was closer to a source of refugees. If they'd taken in 3 million people fleeing from Icelandic volcano carnage [*] and some of them had friends in Germany and wanted to move on, and they got apprehended trying to enter Germany, they wouldn't be saying "fair enough, we got them first, we'll take them back".
[*] I know, Iceland doesn't have that many people although they have a lot of volcano carnage.
With all the caveats - this is one case, it’s the Daily Mail (so may be at least half true), etc etc this is a good example of why ordinary people get frustrated by the asylum system
* Fled Syria in 2014 to avoid being called up. Ok, seems reasonable * Settled in Germany where he had family. Makes sense * 3 years ago he rowed with his family because he drinks and smokes and they said that means he’s not a good Muslim. Hmmh. Seems unlikely… may be @TheScreamingEagles can comment * To quote him: 'I thought the UK would be a good place to find work in the construction industry, I am a talented plasterer,'
In what world is someone who was settled for 5+ years in Germany and has admitted that they are coming to the UK to find work a potential asylum claimant. And how has it taken 3 years to make that determination?
This isn’t a comment on the level of immigration or the need for people to do jobs. It’s a comment on the breakdown is the asylum process. If you want legal immigration that should be separate
I'm guessing the problem is that he was in Germany illegally, so when he showed up, we couldn't just send him back there. (see also why we can't just return all the boat arrivals to France ASAP). Do we currently return people to Syria if their claim fails - I suspect not. That said, I don't see why we can't give the French a taste of their own medicine and not try too hard to stop him boarding a lorry to go and become someone else's problem.
It does show the whole system is broken, but it's difficult to see a solution. Ideally, because he'd been in Germany for several years, we'd just send him back there, but I doubt they would take him if he was there illegally, and I can't see the world collectively agreeing to a "return to the first safe country you got to" system. Having a cheap, safe place to send these people (like Rwanda) sounds like easily the best option, but half the political establishment is determined to prevent us, and at least a quarter seems to be determined to make loads of noise about it without actually doing it (hello Rishi - wonder why I think you're a waste of space).
With all the caveats - this is one case, it’s the Daily Mail (so may be at least half true), etc etc this is a good example of why ordinary people get frustrated by the asylum system
* Fled Syria in 2014 to avoid being called up. Ok, seems reasonable * Settled in Germany where he had family. Makes sense * 3 years ago he rowed with his family because he drinks and smokes and they said that means he’s not a good Muslim. Hmmh. Seems unlikely… may be @TheScreamingEagles can comment * To quote him: 'I thought the UK would be a good place to find work in the construction industry, I am a talented plasterer,'
In what world is someone who was settled for 5+ years in Germany and has admitted that they are coming to the UK to find work a potential asylum claimant. And how has it taken 3 years to make that determination?
This isn’t a comment on the level of immigration or the need for people to do jobs. It’s a comment on the breakdown is the asylum process. If you want legal immigration that should be separate
With all the caveats - this is one case, it’s the Daily Mail (so may be at least half true), etc etc this is a good example of why ordinary people get frustrated by the asylum system
* Fled Syria in 2014 to avoid being called up. Ok, seems reasonable * Settled in Germany where he had family. Makes sense * 3 years ago he rowed with his family because he drinks and smokes and they said that means he’s not a good Muslim. Hmmh. Seems unlikely… may be @TheScreamingEagles can comment * To quote him: 'I thought the UK would be a good place to find work in the construction industry, I am a talented plasterer,'
In what world is someone who was settled for 5+ years in Germany and has admitted that they are coming to the UK to find work a potential asylum claimant. And how has it taken 3 years to make that determination?
This isn’t a comment on the level of immigration or the need for people to do jobs. It’s a comment on the breakdown is the asylum process. If you want legal immigration that should be separate
This is what the internationally-agreed rules say, so you can put it the other way around and ask: Aside from the rowing boat issue, would the system be better if someone who escaped to a safe country had to remain in that safe country and couldn't go further away from the place they're fleeing? I think it would be worse because countries closer to the source of a crisis generally have more people showing up, so if there's a threshold where there are too many people showing up for a country to cope, it's better if the people involved spread themselves further into different countries.
I think British anti-immigration people would understand this if Britain was closer to a source of refugees. If they'd taken in 3 million people fleeing from Icelandic volcano carnage [*] and some of them had friends in Germany and wanted to move on, and they got apprehended trying to enter Germany, they wouldn't be saying "fair enough, we got them first, we'll take them back".
[*] I know, Iceland doesn't have that many people although they have a lot of volcano carnage.
IMV it's the better solution. Turkey has housed millions of Syrian refugees for well over a decade, and has allowed them certain rights. It has been hard on Turkey's economy. Perhaps the best route is for other countries to pay neighbouring countries to help them with the costs?
But when Cameron proposed such a deal with Turkey, there were extreme howls of protest.
With all the caveats - this is one case, it’s the Daily Mail (so may be at least half true), etc etc this is a good example of why ordinary people get frustrated by the asylum system
* Fled Syria in 2014 to avoid being called up. Ok, seems reasonable * Settled in Germany where he had family. Makes sense * 3 years ago he rowed with his family because he drinks and smokes and they said that means he’s not a good Muslim. Hmmh. Seems unlikely… may be @TheScreamingEagles can comment * To quote him: 'I thought the UK would be a good place to find work in the construction industry, I am a talented plasterer,'
In what world is someone who was settled for 5+ years in Germany and has admitted that they are coming to the UK to find work a potential asylum claimant. And how has it taken 3 years to make that determination?
This isn’t a comment on the level of immigration or the need for people to do jobs. It’s a comment on the breakdown is the asylum process. If you want legal immigration that should be separate
On the face of it that seems mad, but, as with Guardian stories about immigration cases, there’s usually an omission or two in the story that make the actuality quite different from the newspaper’s report.
With all the caveats - this is one case, it’s the Daily Mail (so may be at least half true), etc etc this is a good example of why ordinary people get frustrated by the asylum system
* Fled Syria in 2014 to avoid being called up. Ok, seems reasonable * Settled in Germany where he had family. Makes sense * 3 years ago he rowed with his family because he drinks and smokes and they said that means he’s not a good Muslim. Hmmh. Seems unlikely… may be @TheScreamingEagles can comment * To quote him: 'I thought the UK would be a good place to find work in the construction industry, I am a talented plasterer,'
In what world is someone who was settled for 5+ years in Germany and has admitted that they are coming to the UK to find work a potential asylum claimant. And how has it taken 3 years to make that determination?
This isn’t a comment on the level of immigration or the need for people to do jobs. It’s a comment on the breakdown is the asylum process. If you want legal immigration that should be separate
Quite: this should have been a 48 hour determination at most.
We must have the only police force in the world that actively tried to stop someone who admits, and is actively trying to go stop leaving !
But, what can they do with this boat-dwelling arsehole? They can't deport him to Syria. They can't deport him to Germany because of our hard won BREXIT FREEDOMS. The Old Bill can't just not enforce the law that says you can't blag your way onto ferries.
Had Starmer made such an egregious error as Sunak at PMQs, the Times, Telegraph, Mail, Express, Sun and Star would have shared the same lead.
Maybe, although these papers have not splashed Labour dropping the £28 billion green pledge which had allegedly been pencilled in as the Conservatives' next attack line.
Announced too late for the early editions? Maybe tomorrow.
With all the caveats - this is one case, it’s the Daily Mail (so may be at least half true), etc etc this is a good example of why ordinary people get frustrated by the asylum system
* Fled Syria in 2014 to avoid being called up. Ok, seems reasonable * Settled in Germany where he had family. Makes sense * 3 years ago he rowed with his family because he drinks and smokes and they said that means he’s not a good Muslim. Hmmh. Seems unlikely… may be @TheScreamingEagles can comment * To quote him: 'I thought the UK would be a good place to find work in the construction industry, I am a talented plasterer,'
In what world is someone who was settled for 5+ years in Germany and has admitted that they are coming to the UK to find work a potential asylum claimant. And how has it taken 3 years to make that determination?
This isn’t a comment on the level of immigration or the need for people to do jobs. It’s a comment on the breakdown is the asylum process. If you want legal immigration that should be separate
Quite: this should have been a 48 hour determination at most.
We must have the only police force in the world that actively tried to stop someone who admits, and is actively trying to go stop leaving !
But, what can they do with this boat-dwelling arsehole? They can't deport him to Syria. They can't deport him to Germany because of our hard won BREXIT FREEDOMS. The Old Bill can't just not enforce the law that says you can't blag your way onto ferries.
With all the caveats - this is one case, it’s the Daily Mail (so may be at least half true), etc etc this is a good example of why ordinary people get frustrated by the asylum system
* Fled Syria in 2014 to avoid being called up. Ok, seems reasonable * Settled in Germany where he had family. Makes sense * 3 years ago he rowed with his family because he drinks and smokes and they said that means he’s not a good Muslim. Hmmh. Seems unlikely… may be @TheScreamingEagles can comment * To quote him: 'I thought the UK would be a good place to find work in the construction industry, I am a talented plasterer,'
In what world is someone who was settled for 5+ years in Germany and has admitted that they are coming to the UK to find work a potential asylum claimant. And how has it taken 3 years to make that determination?
This isn’t a comment on the level of immigration or the need for people to do jobs. It’s a comment on the breakdown is the asylum process. If you want legal immigration that should be separate
Quite: this should have been a 48 hour determination at most.
We must have the only police force in the world that actively tried to stop someone who admits, and is actively trying to go stop leaving !
But, what can they do with this boat-dwelling arsehole? They can't deport him to Syria. They can't deport him to Germany because of our hard won BREXIT FREEDOMS. The Old Bill can't just not enforce the law that says you can't blag your way onto ferries.
Stick him on a train to Dublin.
Sunak should stick him on a plane to Rwanda and claim his £1,000.
Rishi Sunak faces internal revolt over plan to scrap ‘boiler tax’
Climate minister and officials fear stopping the scheme could put Britain’s net zero ambitions in jeopardy
The energy secretary is facing a revolt from her climate minister and senior officials over plans to scrap a so-called “boiler tax” designed to incentivise the uptake of heat pumps.
Graham Stuart, the minister of state for climate, is considering resigning after Claire Coutinho, the energy secretary, backed down in the face of industry concerns.
He has privately warned that scrapping the scheme could put Britain’s net zero ambitions in jeopardy while allowing boiler manufacturers to continue pushing “unmitigated emissions” from home heating to protect their business model. He said the decision left the government at “severe legal risk”.
With all the caveats - this is one case, it’s the Daily Mail (so may be at least half true), etc etc this is a good example of why ordinary people get frustrated by the asylum system
* Fled Syria in 2014 to avoid being called up. Ok, seems reasonable * Settled in Germany where he had family. Makes sense * 3 years ago he rowed with his family because he drinks and smokes and they said that means he’s not a good Muslim. Hmmh. Seems unlikely… may be @TheScreamingEagles can comment * To quote him: 'I thought the UK would be a good place to find work in the construction industry, I am a talented plasterer,'
In what world is someone who was settled for 5+ years in Germany and has admitted that they are coming to the UK to find work a potential asylum claimant. And how has it taken 3 years to make that determination?
This isn’t a comment on the level of immigration or the need for people to do jobs. It’s a comment on the breakdown is the asylum process. If you want legal immigration that should be separate
This is what the internationally-agreed rules say, so you can put it the other way around and ask: Aside from the rowing boat issue, would the system be better if someone who escaped to a safe country had to remain in that safe country and couldn't go further away from the place they're fleeing? I think it would be worse because countries closer to the source of a crisis generally have more people showing up, so if there's a threshold where there are too many people showing up for a country to cope, it's better if the people involved spread themselves further into different countries.
I think British anti-immigration people would understand this if Britain was closer to a source of refugees. If they'd taken in 3 million people fleeing from Icelandic volcano carnage [*] and some of them had friends in Germany and wanted to move on, and they got apprehended trying to enter Germany, they wouldn't be saying "fair enough, we got them first, we'll take them back".
[*] I know, Iceland doesn't have that many people although they have a lot of volcano carnage.
Rules are crap then , this clownwas an economic migrant at best and should have been on teh next boat home. This country is truly Fcuked up by morons and do gooders running the public services.
With all the caveats - this is one case, it’s the Daily Mail (so may be at least half true), etc etc this is a good example of why ordinary people get frustrated by the asylum system
* Fled Syria in 2014 to avoid being called up. Ok, seems reasonable * Settled in Germany where he had family. Makes sense * 3 years ago he rowed with his family because he drinks and smokes and they said that means he’s not a good Muslim. Hmmh. Seems unlikely… may be @TheScreamingEagles can comment * To quote him: 'I thought the UK would be a good place to find work in the construction industry, I am a talented plasterer,'
In what world is someone who was settled for 5+ years in Germany and has admitted that they are coming to the UK to find work a potential asylum claimant. And how has it taken 3 years to make that determination?
This isn’t a comment on the level of immigration or the need for people to do jobs. It’s a comment on the breakdown is the asylum process. If you want legal immigration that should be separate
I hope we are all celebrating. I might start with a shot of voddie
So, two humourless enemies of American democracy compete to see who is the biggest asshole?
Tucker has the chance to do the funniest thing ever and do a proper hard-hitting interview.
That won't happen, as the Kremlin won't allow it. There may be questions that *sound* difficult, but they'll all have been agreed in advance.
Russia is at war; and it sees a great way of helping it prosecute that war is to remove its enemy's external supporters. Hence that's the aim of this interview: to make Ukraine the bad guy. It'll be: "We're just defending ourselves!"
Both sides will want a win out of this; but that's easy when both sides want the same thing.
One may agree with Tucker or not, but he is a major American journalist and such an action would greatly offend the American public."
followed by retweeting: "The European Union is said to be seeking sanctions and a "travel ban" against Tucker Carlson for his interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin."
As a general rule, if anyone starts by saying 'If true' it's fairly likely that they already know that what follows isn't true, and just enjoy spreading misinformation because they are arseholes.
With all the caveats - this is one case, it’s the Daily Mail (so may be at least half true), etc etc this is a good example of why ordinary people get frustrated by the asylum system
* Fled Syria in 2014 to avoid being called up. Ok, seems reasonable * Settled in Germany where he had family. Makes sense * 3 years ago he rowed with his family because he drinks and smokes and they said that means he’s not a good Muslim. Hmmh. Seems unlikely… may be @TheScreamingEagles can comment * To quote him: 'I thought the UK would be a good place to find work in the construction industry, I am a talented plasterer,'
In what world is someone who was settled for 5+ years in Germany and has admitted that they are coming to the UK to find work a potential asylum claimant. And how has it taken 3 years to make that determination?
This isn’t a comment on the level of immigration or the need for people to do jobs. It’s a comment on the breakdown is the asylum process. If you want legal immigration that should be separate
This is what the internationally-agreed rules say, so you can put it the other way around and ask: Aside from the rowing boat issue, would the system be better if someone who escaped to a safe country had to remain in that safe country and couldn't go further away from the place they're fleeing? I think it would be worse because countries closer to the source of a crisis generally have more people showing up, so if there's a threshold where there are too many people showing up for a country to cope, it's better if the people involved spread themselves further into different countries.
I think British anti-immigration people would understand this if Britain was closer to a source of refugees. If they'd taken in 3 million people fleeing from Icelandic volcano carnage [*] and some of them had friends in Germany and wanted to move on, and they got apprehended trying to enter Germany, they wouldn't be saying "fair enough, we got them first, we'll take them back".
[*] I know, Iceland doesn't have that many people although they have a lot of volcano carnage.
There is a huge difference between someone who is “passing through” a safe country as part of their flight and someone who stayed there for 5 years.
You don’t preserve a perpetual right to claim asylum - it should be an imminent threat to trigger that.
One may agree with Tucker or not, but he is a major American journalist and such an action would greatly offend the American public."
followed by retweeting: "The European Union is said to be seeking sanctions and a "travel ban" against Tucker Carlson for his interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin."
As a general rule, if anyone starts by saying 'If true' it's fairly likely that they already know that what follows isn't true, and just enjoy spreading misinformation because they are arseholes.
With all the caveats - this is one case, it’s the Daily Mail (so may be at least half true), etc etc this is a good example of why ordinary people get frustrated by the asylum system
* Fled Syria in 2014 to avoid being called up. Ok, seems reasonable * Settled in Germany where he had family. Makes sense * 3 years ago he rowed with his family because he drinks and smokes and they said that means he’s not a good Muslim. Hmmh. Seems unlikely… may be @TheScreamingEagles can comment * To quote him: 'I thought the UK would be a good place to find work in the construction industry, I am a talented plasterer,'
In what world is someone who was settled for 5+ years in Germany and has admitted that they are coming to the UK to find work a potential asylum claimant. And how has it taken 3 years to make that determination?
This isn’t a comment on the level of immigration or the need for people to do jobs. It’s a comment on the breakdown is the asylum process. If you want legal immigration that should be separate
With all the caveats - this is one case, it’s the Daily Mail (so may be at least half true), etc etc this is a good example of why ordinary people get frustrated by the asylum system
* Fled Syria in 2014 to avoid being called up. Ok, seems reasonable * Settled in Germany where he had family. Makes sense * 3 years ago he rowed with his family because he drinks and smokes and they said that means he’s not a good Muslim. Hmmh. Seems unlikely… may be @TheScreamingEagles can comment * To quote him: 'I thought the UK would be a good place to find work in the construction industry, I am a talented plasterer,'
In what world is someone who was settled for 5+ years in Germany and has admitted that they are coming to the UK to find work a potential asylum claimant. And how has it taken 3 years to make that determination?
This isn’t a comment on the level of immigration or the need for people to do jobs. It’s a comment on the breakdown is the asylum process. If you want legal immigration that should be separate
This is what the internationally-agreed rules say, so you can put it the other way around and ask: Aside from the rowing boat issue, would the system be better if someone who escaped to a safe country had to remain in that safe country and couldn't go further away from the place they're fleeing? I think it would be worse because countries closer to the source of a crisis generally have more people showing up, so if there's a threshold where there are too many people showing up for a country to cope, it's better if the people involved spread themselves further into different countries.
I think British anti-immigration people would understand this if Britain was closer to a source of refugees. If they'd taken in 3 million people fleeing from Icelandic volcano carnage [*] and some of them had friends in Germany and wanted to move on, and they got apprehended trying to enter Germany, they wouldn't be saying "fair enough, we got them first, we'll take them back".
[*] I know, Iceland doesn't have that many people although they have a lot of volcano carnage.
Rules are crap then , this clownwas an economic migrant at best and should have been on teh next boat home. This country is truly Fcuked up by morons and do gooders running the public services.
Yes, we are fucked because we do not people illegally leave the country. We should turn a blind eye and not check vehicles, thus ensuring that the worst criminals and suspects can simply slip away from justice.
That what you want? You can't turn a blind eye selectively.
With all the caveats - this is one case, it’s the Daily Mail (so may be at least half true), etc etc this is a good example of why ordinary people get frustrated by the asylum system
* Fled Syria in 2014 to avoid being called up. Ok, seems reasonable * Settled in Germany where he had family. Makes sense * 3 years ago he rowed with his family because he drinks and smokes and they said that means he’s not a good Muslim. Hmmh. Seems unlikely… may be @TheScreamingEagles can comment * To quote him: 'I thought the UK would be a good place to find work in the construction industry, I am a talented plasterer,'
In what world is someone who was settled for 5+ years in Germany and has admitted that they are coming to the UK to find work a potential asylum claimant. And how has it taken 3 years to make that determination?
This isn’t a comment on the level of immigration or the need for people to do jobs. It’s a comment on the breakdown is the asylum process. If you want legal immigration that should be separate
On the face of it that seems mad, but, as with Guardian stories about immigration cases, there’s usually an omission or two in the story that make the actuality quite different from the newspaper’s report.
Very likely - hence the caveat at the beginning
I suspect - as noted above - he was in Germany illegally which complicates matters.
Rishi Sunak faces internal revolt over plan to scrap ‘boiler tax’
Climate minister and officials fear stopping the scheme could put Britain’s net zero ambitions in jeopardy
The energy secretary is facing a revolt from her climate minister and senior officials over plans to scrap a so-called “boiler tax” designed to incentivise the uptake of heat pumps.
Graham Stuart, the minister of state for climate, is considering resigning after Claire Coutinho, the energy secretary, backed down in the face of industry concerns.
He has privately warned that scrapping the scheme could put Britain’s net zero ambitions in jeopardy while allowing boiler manufacturers to continue pushing “unmitigated emissions” from home heating to protect their business model. He said the decision left the government at “severe legal risk”.
Any government that turns off the gas supply to everyone's home and forces us all to rip out our central heating and start again will face the biggest public backlash ever seen.
Yep, proper journalism rather than twitter soundbites.
That’s the problem, we all expect instant news, not calm reflection!
And good morning everyone, although it’s not good here; raining hard! At least it’s not snowing.
We have a weather alert for torrential rain, today and tonight. Roll on the weekend, when we might actually see some sunshine!
No snow here yet ahead of the quite focussed northern amber zone coming into effect at midday, though some snow is forecast this morning, we've had rain and the radar says the front of the main precipitation band is close.
The special schools on our side of Kirklees have closed in anticipation, and the sixth forms have gone remote for the day, but mainstream 5-16 schools are all.open this morning with no fussing messages issued. Will see how things progress.
The Viagra story is just too easy to pun so I shall not go there. However it seems more likely to me that it would be the active sex life and related social connections preventing alzheimers rather than the drug itself?
The Viagra story is just too easy to pun so I shall not go there. However it seems more likely to me that it would be the active sex life and related social connections preventing alzheimers rather than the drug itself?
May be.
Although increased blood flow to the brain may help as well
Edit: I meant the big brain, not the little brain!
"The United States bought more goods from Mexico than China in 2023 for the first time in 20 years. The trade deficit with China narrowed significantly last year, with goods imports from the country dropping 20 percent to $427.2 billion” https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1755411177167798295
One may agree with Tucker or not, but he is a major American journalist and such an action would greatly offend the American public."
followed by retweeting: "The European Union is said to be seeking sanctions and a "travel ban" against Tucker Carlson for his interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin."
As a general rule, if anyone starts by saying 'If true' it's fairly likely that they already know that what follows isn't true, and just enjoy spreading misinformation because they are arseholes.
But wait, Christiane Amanpour of CNN (a fine and famous journalist) and multiple other celebrated hacks, have all said they’ve tried and tried to get interviews with Putin
Is the EU going to ban them as well? Why not? So why are they banning Tucker C? For succeeding as a journalist?
One may agree with Tucker or not, but he is a major American journalist and such an action would greatly offend the American public."
followed by retweeting: "The European Union is said to be seeking sanctions and a "travel ban" against Tucker Carlson for his interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin."
As a general rule, if anyone starts by saying 'If true' it's fairly likely that they already know that what follows isn't true, and just enjoy spreading misinformation because they are arseholes.
But wait, Christiane Amanpour of CNN (a fine and famous journalist) and multiple other celebrated hacks, have all said they’ve tried and tried to get interviews with Putin
Is the EU going to ban them as well? Why not? So why are they banning Tucker C? For succeeding as a journalist?
Preposterous bollocks; thank god we left the EU
During the Yugoslav wars, journalists gave interviews to such people as Arkan and Ratko Mladić. Some were quite er… unchallenging.
Funny thing - The Tankies were on the pro-genocide team on that one as well.
One may agree with Tucker or not, but he is a major American journalist and such an action would greatly offend the American public."
followed by retweeting: "The European Union is said to be seeking sanctions and a "travel ban" against Tucker Carlson for his interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin."
As a general rule, if anyone starts by saying 'If true' it's fairly likely that they already know that what follows isn't true, and just enjoy spreading misinformation because they are arseholes.
But wait, Christiane Amanpour of CNN (a fine and famous journalist) and multiple other celebrated hacks, have all said they’ve tried and tried to get interviews with Putin
Is the EU going to ban them as well? Why not? So why are they banning Tucker C? For succeeding as a journalist?
Preposterous bollocks; thank god we left the EU
Perhaps because they were trying to interview Putin rather than propagandise on his behalf ?
The ban is a silly idea - but as a justification for leaving the EU, it's even sillier than your usual output.
One may agree with Tucker or not, but he is a major American journalist and such an action would greatly offend the American public."
followed by retweeting: "The European Union is said to be seeking sanctions and a "travel ban" against Tucker Carlson for his interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin."
As a general rule, if anyone starts by saying 'If true' it's fairly likely that they already know that what follows isn't true, and just enjoy spreading misinformation because they are arseholes.
But wait, Christiane Amanpour of CNN (a fine and famous journalist) and multiple other celebrated hacks, have all said they’ve tried and tried to get interviews with Putin
Is the EU going to ban them as well? Why not? So why are they banning Tucker C? For succeeding as a journalist?
Preposterous bollocks; thank god we left the EU
During the Yugoslav wars, journalists gave interviews to such people as Arkan and Ratko Mladić. Some were quite er… unchallenging.
Funny thing - The Tankies were on the pro-genocide team on that one as well.
It’s all great for Tucker and Musk. The more absurd the hysteria the more people will watch it
I stand by my prediction it will end up the most watched political interview of all time
One may agree with Tucker or not, but he is a major American journalist and such an action would greatly offend the American public."
followed by retweeting: "The European Union is said to be seeking sanctions and a "travel ban" against Tucker Carlson for his interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin."
As a general rule, if anyone starts by saying 'If true' it's fairly likely that they already know that what follows isn't true, and just enjoy spreading misinformation because they are arseholes.
But wait, Christiane Amanpour of CNN (a fine and famous journalist) and multiple other celebrated hacks, have all said they’ve tried and tried to get interviews with Putin
Is the EU going to ban them as well? Why not? So why are they banning Tucker C? For succeeding as a journalist?
Preposterous bollocks; thank god we left the EU
Perhaps because they were trying to interview Putin rather than propagandise on his behalf ?
The ban is a silly idea - but as a justification for leaving the EU, it's even sillier than your usual output.
One may agree with Tucker or not, but he is a major American journalist and such an action would greatly offend the American public."
followed by retweeting: "The European Union is said to be seeking sanctions and a "travel ban" against Tucker Carlson for his interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin."
As a general rule, if anyone starts by saying 'If true' it's fairly likely that they already know that what follows isn't true, and just enjoy spreading misinformation because they are arseholes.
But wait, Christiane Amanpour of CNN (a fine and famous journalist) and multiple other celebrated hacks, have all said they’ve tried and tried to get interviews with Putin
Is the EU going to ban them as well? Why not? So why are they banning Tucker C? For succeeding as a journalist?
Preposterous bollocks; thank god we left the EU
Let's see if Carlson probes with a sharp and unpleasantly shaped stick or merely blows smoke up Putin's arse. I suspect it will be the latter, so EU, in that event ban away.
One may agree with Tucker or not, but he is a major American journalist and such an action would greatly offend the American public."
followed by retweeting: "The European Union is said to be seeking sanctions and a "travel ban" against Tucker Carlson for his interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin."
As a general rule, if anyone starts by saying 'If true' it's fairly likely that they already know that what follows isn't true, and just enjoy spreading misinformation because they are arseholes.
But wait, Christiane Amanpour of CNN (a fine and famous journalist) and multiple other celebrated hacks, have all said they’ve tried and tried to get interviews with Putin
Is the EU going to ban them as well? Why not? So why are they banning Tucker C? For succeeding as a journalist?
Preposterous bollocks; thank god we left the EU
During the Yugoslav wars, journalists gave interviews to such people as Arkan and Ratko Mladić. Some were quite er… unchallenging.
Funny thing - The Tankies were on the pro-genocide team on that one as well.
It’s all great for Tucker and Musk. The more absurd the hysteria the more people will watch it
I stand by my prediction it will end up the most watched political interview of all time
I think you need to define 'watched'. Number of impressions? Number of clips seen? Number of people who watched the whole thing?
One may agree with Tucker or not, but he is a major American journalist and such an action would greatly offend the American public."
followed by retweeting: "The European Union is said to be seeking sanctions and a "travel ban" against Tucker Carlson for his interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin."
As a general rule, if anyone starts by saying 'If true' it's fairly likely that they already know that what follows isn't true, and just enjoy spreading misinformation because they are arseholes.
But wait, Christiane Amanpour of CNN (a fine and famous journalist) and multiple other celebrated hacks, have all said they’ve tried and tried to get interviews with Putin
Is the EU going to ban them as well? Why not? So why are they banning Tucker C? For succeeding as a journalist?
Preposterous bollocks; thank god we left the EU
Perhaps because they were trying to interview Putin rather than propagandise on his behalf ?
The ban is a silly idea - but as a justification for leaving the EU, it's even sillier than your usual output.
One may agree with Tucker or not, but he is a major American journalist and such an action would greatly offend the American public."
followed by retweeting: "The European Union is said to be seeking sanctions and a "travel ban" against Tucker Carlson for his interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin."
As a general rule, if anyone starts by saying 'If true' it's fairly likely that they already know that what follows isn't true, and just enjoy spreading misinformation because they are arseholes.
But wait, Christiane Amanpour of CNN (a fine and famous journalist) and multiple other celebrated hacks, have all said they’ve tried and tried to get interviews with Putin
Is the EU going to ban them as well? Why not? So why are they banning Tucker C? For succeeding as a journalist?
Preposterous bollocks; thank god we left the EU
Perhaps because they were trying to interview Putin rather than propagandise on his behalf ?
The ban is a silly idea - but as a justification for leaving the EU, it's even sillier than your usual output.
One may agree with Tucker or not, but he is a major American journalist and such an action would greatly offend the American public."
followed by retweeting: "The European Union is said to be seeking sanctions and a "travel ban" against Tucker Carlson for his interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin."
As a general rule, if anyone starts by saying 'If true' it's fairly likely that they already know that what follows isn't true, and just enjoy spreading misinformation because they are arseholes.
But wait, Christiane Amanpour of CNN (a fine and famous journalist) and multiple other celebrated hacks, have all said they’ve tried and tried to get interviews with Putin
Is the EU going to ban them as well? Why not? So why are they banning Tucker C? For succeeding as a journalist?
Preposterous bollocks; thank god we left the EU
During the Yugoslav wars, journalists gave interviews to such people as Arkan and Ratko Mladić. Some were quite er… unchallenging.
Funny thing - The Tankies were on the pro-genocide team on that one as well.
It’s all great for Tucker and Musk. The more absurd the hysteria the more people will watch it
I stand by my prediction it will end up the most watched political interview of all time
The thing about all the fuss over the 1.5 degrees is that many people will look out of the window and think "meh".
Yes the 1.5C target is ridiculously low and based on centuries old data.
1.5C from here, that might be meaningful. 1.5C from what was a colder age anyway, when we're already consistently at 1.2C is utterly meaningless rounding error stuff.
One may agree with Tucker or not, but he is a major American journalist and such an action would greatly offend the American public."
followed by retweeting: "The European Union is said to be seeking sanctions and a "travel ban" against Tucker Carlson for his interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin."
As a general rule, if anyone starts by saying 'If true' it's fairly likely that they already know that what follows isn't true, and just enjoy spreading misinformation because they are arseholes.
But wait, Christiane Amanpour of CNN (a fine and famous journalist) and multiple other celebrated hacks, have all said they’ve tried and tried to get interviews with Putin
Is the EU going to ban them as well? Why not? So why are they banning Tucker C? For succeeding as a journalist?
Preposterous bollocks; thank god we left the EU
Perhaps because they were trying to interview Putin rather than propagandise on his behalf ?
The ban is a silly idea - but as a justification for leaving the EU, it's even sillier than your usual output.
The Viagra story is just too easy to pun so I shall not go there. However it seems more likely to me that it would be the active sex life and related social connections preventing alzheimers rather than the drug itself?
There is some biochemical plausibility for a positive effect, but it may well be simple correlation such as a marker of a more active lifestyle, or even survival bias with Viagra users more likely to die than get alzheimers as Viagra use is often in vascular disease.
Is it me or does this headline Just 2 months to beat Hunt's double capital gains and inheritance tax grab so act fast read as "If you're reasonably well off, get dieing FAST to avoid tax" ?
"The United States bought more goods from Mexico than China in 2023 for the first time in 20 years. The trade deficit with China narrowed significantly last year, with goods imports from the country dropping 20 percent to $427.2 billion” https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1755411177167798295
The thing about all the fuss over the 1.5 degrees is that many people will look out of the window and think "meh".
Yes the 1.5C target is ridiculously low and based on centuries old data.
1.5C from here, that might be meaningful. 1.5C from what was a colder age anyway, when we're already consistently at 1.2C is utterly meaningless rounding error stuff.
1.5° from here means climate catastrophe for large parts of the world.
Is it me or does this headline Just 2 months to beat Hunt's double capital gains and inheritance tax grab so act fast read as "If you're reasonably well off, get dieing FAST to avoid tax" ?
Bit illogical given the millions of promises and hints from the Tories, including on here, that the Tories will abolish IHT. Something wrong there ...
One may agree with Tucker or not, but he is a major American journalist and such an action would greatly offend the American public."
followed by retweeting: "The European Union is said to be seeking sanctions and a "travel ban" against Tucker Carlson for his interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin."
As a general rule, if anyone starts by saying 'If true' it's fairly likely that they already know that what follows isn't true, and just enjoy spreading misinformation because they are arseholes.
But wait, Christiane Amanpour of CNN (a fine and famous journalist) and multiple other celebrated hacks, have all said they’ve tried and tried to get interviews with Putin
Is the EU going to ban them as well? Why not? So why are they banning Tucker C? For succeeding as a journalist?
Preposterous bollocks; thank god we left the EU
Perhaps because they were trying to interview Putin rather than propagandise on his behalf ?
The ban is a silly idea - but as a justification for leaving the EU, it's even sillier than your usual output.
One may agree with Tucker or not, but he is a major American journalist and such an action would greatly offend the American public."
followed by retweeting: "The European Union is said to be seeking sanctions and a "travel ban" against Tucker Carlson for his interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin."
As a general rule, if anyone starts by saying 'If true' it's fairly likely that they already know that what follows isn't true, and just enjoy spreading misinformation because they are arseholes.
But wait, Christiane Amanpour of CNN (a fine and famous journalist) and multiple other celebrated hacks, have all said they’ve tried and tried to get interviews with Putin
Is the EU going to ban them as well? Why not? So why are they banning Tucker C? For succeeding as a journalist?
Preposterous bollocks; thank god we left the EU
Perhaps because they were trying to interview Putin rather than propagandise on his behalf ?
The ban is a silly idea - but as a justification for leaving the EU, it's even sillier than your usual output.
With all the caveats - this is one case, it’s the Daily Mail (so may be at least half true), etc etc this is a good example of why ordinary people get frustrated by the asylum system
* Fled Syria in 2014 to avoid being called up. Ok, seems reasonable * Settled in Germany where he had family. Makes sense * 3 years ago he rowed with his family because he drinks and smokes and they said that means he’s not a good Muslim. Hmmh. Seems unlikely… may be @TheScreamingEagles can comment * To quote him: 'I thought the UK would be a good place to find work in the construction industry, I am a talented plasterer,'
In what world is someone who was settled for 5+ years in Germany and has admitted that they are coming to the UK to find work a potential asylum claimant. And how has it taken 3 years to make that determination?
This isn’t a comment on the level of immigration or the need for people to do jobs. It’s a comment on the breakdown is the asylum process. If you want legal immigration that should be separate
Quite: this should have been a 48 hour determination at most.
We must have the only police force in the world that actively tried to stop someone who admits, and is actively trying to go stop leaving !
But, what can they do with this boat-dwelling arsehole? They can't deport him to Syria. They can't deport him to Germany because of our hard won BREXIT FREEDOMS. The Old Bill can't just not enforce the law that says you can't blag your way onto ferries.
Stick him on a train to Dublin.
Brutal! I remember aged 18 going to Spain for a week just before taking up my first job. On the beach I met an English guy about the same age as me with a battered boat and 'Joe's Speedboat' daubed on the side.
He had a bevy of girls around him and every now and then someone would turn up wanting a ski he'd give them a spin round the bay. I spent most of the week with him and I spent the next several years wondering why I was working like a dog in London and wasn't doing what Joe was doing with his bevvy of girls not a care in the world driving his speedboat.
When did we become this morose place where we worry about someone from another country sleeping under a boat or even buying one if he wants to? What's wrong with foreigners being here? When did this obsession start?
One may agree with Tucker or not, but he is a major American journalist and such an action would greatly offend the American public."
followed by retweeting: "The European Union is said to be seeking sanctions and a "travel ban" against Tucker Carlson for his interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin."
As a general rule, if anyone starts by saying 'If true' it's fairly likely that they already know that what follows isn't true, and just enjoy spreading misinformation because they are arseholes.
But wait, Christiane Amanpour of CNN (a fine and famous journalist) and multiple other celebrated hacks, have all said they’ve tried and tried to get interviews with Putin
Is the EU going to ban them as well? Why not? So why are they banning Tucker C? For succeeding as a journalist?
Preposterous bollocks; thank god we left the EU
Perhaps because they were trying to interview Putin rather than propagandise on his behalf ?
The ban is a silly idea - but as a justification for leaving the EU, it's even sillier than your usual output.
But he hasn’t even broadcast the interview yet, so how can he be accused of propagandising? We don’t know what’s in it
Why doesn’t the EU take a fucking chill pill and see what actually happens
As usual you will believe any bullshit far right or pro-Putin propaganda. Obviously it wasn't clear enough (at least not to a dimwit like you) so I'll put it in all caps for you
THE EU IS NOT SEEKING A TRAVEL BAN ON CARLSON
Of course, as a general point, the UK, for example, does ban people when it doesn't like what they say:
Here's an example from last year of the UK banning the Austrian nationalist at the centre of the Potsdam meeting that got millions of Germans demonstrating against the far-right the last few weeks, an American 'youtube commentator and author', and a Canadian 'right-wing activist':
Er, you haven't noticed that we have discussed it several times on PB, including Labour's modification of the photo to a Britain Isn't Working-style election poster. But it is always good to remind ourselves that that is the way in which current government policy drills down to the ordinary punter on the street.
One may agree with Tucker or not, but he is a major American journalist and such an action would greatly offend the American public."
followed by retweeting: "The European Union is said to be seeking sanctions and a "travel ban" against Tucker Carlson for his interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin."
As a general rule, if anyone starts by saying 'If true' it's fairly likely that they already know that what follows isn't true, and just enjoy spreading misinformation because they are arseholes.
But wait, Christiane Amanpour of CNN (a fine and famous journalist) and multiple other celebrated hacks, have all said they’ve tried and tried to get interviews with Putin
Is the EU going to ban them as well? Why not? So why are they banning Tucker C? For succeeding as a journalist?
Preposterous bollocks; thank god we left the EU
Perhaps because they were trying to interview Putin rather than propagandise on his behalf ?
The ban is a silly idea - but as a justification for leaving the EU, it's even sillier than your usual output.
But he hasn’t even broadcast the interview yet, so how can he be accused of propagandising? We don’t know what’s in it
Why doesn’t the EU take a fucking chill pill and see what actually happens
As usual you will believe any bullshit far right or pro-Putin propaganda. Obviously it wasn't clear enough (at least not to a dimwit like you) so I'll put it in all caps for you
THE EU IS NOT SEEKING A TRAVEL BAN ON CARLSON
Of course, as a general point, the UK, for example, does ban people when it doesn't like what they say:
Here's an example from last year of the UK banning the Austrian nationalist at the centre of the Potsdam meeting that got millions of Germans demonstrating against the far-right the last few weeks, an American 'youtube commentator and author', and a Canadian 'right-wing activist':
Estonian Member of European Parliament @Urmaspaet Paet thinks that Tucker #Carlson interviewed a war criminal #Putin, expected in Hague and that does make him a journalist with any professional integrity, hence should have EU travel ban.
"The United States bought more goods from Mexico than China in 2023 for the first time in 20 years. The trade deficit with China narrowed significantly last year, with goods imports from the country dropping 20 percent to $427.2 billion” https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1755411177167798295
Our town's dentist is technically an NHS dentists, but apparently you need the luck of the devil to get on the NHS list there (they are very good dentists, if that helps).
A new dentist has opened up in the town, in a very central location. And from what I see on their website, they don't take NHS patients.
We're lucky in that we can afford to go private. But many people we know can not, and some don't have cars to take them to NHS dentists elsewhere.
The system will have to change; I don't know in what way, though.
Today’s front pages – politicalbetting.com
Comments
* Fled Syria in 2014 to avoid being called up. Ok, seems reasonable
* Settled in Germany where he had family. Makes sense
* 3 years ago he rowed with his family because he drinks and smokes and they said that means he’s not a good Muslim. Hmmh. Seems unlikely… may be @TheScreamingEagles can comment
* To quote him: 'I thought the UK would be a good place to find work in the construction industry, I am a talented plasterer,'
In what world is someone who was settled for 5+ years in Germany and has admitted that they are coming to the UK to find work a potential asylum claimant. And how has it taken 3 years to make that determination?
This isn’t a comment on the level of immigration or the need for people to do jobs. It’s a comment on the breakdown is the asylum process. If you want legal immigration that should be separate
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13058261/why-wont-police-let-leave-britain-ilegal-channel-migrant-living-rowing-boat.html
I think British anti-immigration people would understand this if Britain was closer to a source of refugees. If they'd taken in 3 million people fleeing from Icelandic volcano carnage [*] and some of them had friends in Germany and wanted to move on, and they got apprehended trying to enter Germany, they wouldn't be saying "fair enough, we got them first, we'll take them back".
[*] I know, Iceland doesn't have that many people although they have a lot of volcano carnage.
That said, I don't see why we can't give the French a taste of their own medicine and not try too hard to stop him boarding a lorry to go and become someone else's problem.
It does show the whole system is broken, but it's difficult to see a solution. Ideally, because he'd been in Germany for several years, we'd just send him back there, but I doubt they would take him if he was there illegally, and I can't see the world collectively agreeing to a "return to the first safe country you got to" system.
Having a cheap, safe place to send these people (like Rwanda) sounds like easily the best option, but half the political establishment is determined to prevent us, and at least a quarter seems to be determined to make loads of noise about it without actually doing it (hello Rishi - wonder why I think you're a waste of space).
"Where is the leftist loonys demanding that the government step in immediately to help this poor man leave."
But when Cameron proposed such a deal with Turkey, there were extreme howls of protest.
I hope we are all celebrating. I might start with a shot of voddie
Hard to say. Very hard
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/08/unrest-leicester-muslim-hindu-revealed-britain-modi-india-2022
He has also asked for an interview with Zelensky. Be interesting to see if that is forthcoming.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/tucker-carlson-vladimir-putin-interview-when-and-how-to-watch-it-what-we-know-so-far/ar-BB1hSJHV
Labour's u-turn is "politically jejeune".
Classic Old Labour rhetoric.
Pro tip, swallow the Viagra tablet quickly otherwise you'll get a stiff neck.
Rishi Sunak faces internal revolt over plan to scrap ‘boiler tax’
Climate minister and officials fear stopping the scheme could put Britain’s net zero ambitions in jeopardy
The energy secretary is facing a revolt from her climate minister and senior officials over plans to scrap a so-called “boiler tax” designed to incentivise the uptake of heat pumps.
Graham Stuart, the minister of state for climate, is considering resigning after Claire Coutinho, the energy secretary, backed down in the face of industry concerns.
He has privately warned that scrapping the scheme could put Britain’s net zero ambitions in jeopardy while allowing boiler manufacturers to continue pushing “unmitigated emissions” from home heating to protect their business model. He said the decision left the government at “severe legal risk”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ishi-sunak-boiler-tax-2024-heat-pumps-t85tqlnr8
And good morning everyone, although it’s not good here; raining hard! At least it’s not snowing.
This country is truly Fcuked up by morons and do gooders running the public services.
Not drinking/eating a halal diet is how I can claim to be a good Muslim.
Russia is at war; and it sees a great way of helping it prosecute that war is to remove its enemy's external supporters. Hence that's the aim of this interview: to make Ukraine the bad guy. It'll be: "We're just defending ourselves!"
Both sides will want a win out of this; but that's easy when both sides want the same thing.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1755254449285820764
"If true, this would be disturbing indeed.
One may agree with Tucker or not, but he is a major American journalist and such an action would greatly offend the American public."
followed by retweeting:
"The European Union is said to be seeking sanctions and a "travel ban" against Tucker Carlson for his interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin."
As a general rule, if anyone starts by saying 'If true' it's fairly likely that they already know that what follows isn't true, and just enjoy spreading misinformation because they are arseholes.
You don’t preserve a perpetual right to claim asylum - it should be an imminent threat to trigger that.
That what you want? You can't turn a blind eye selectively.
I suspect - as noted above - he was in Germany illegally which complicates matters.
The special schools on our side of Kirklees have closed in anticipation, and the sixth forms have gone remote for the day, but mainstream 5-16 schools are all.open this
morning with no fussing messages issued. Will see how things progress.
Normally researchers would conduct a longitudinal study.
On this occasion that may be ninety degrees out.
Although increased blood flow to the brain may help as well
Edit: I meant the big brain, not the little brain!
https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1755411177167798295
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/mojo-nixon-dead-obituary-1234964257/
Is the EU going to ban them as well? Why not? So why are they banning Tucker C? For succeeding as a journalist?
Preposterous bollocks; thank god we left the EU
Funny thing - The Tankies were on the pro-genocide team on that one as well.
The ban is a silly idea - but as a justification for leaving the EU, it's even sillier than your usual output.
Btw, next to Sartre, you're a monk.
https://twitter.com/curiouswavefn/status/1180601316550164481
I stand by my prediction it will end up the most watched political interview of all time
Why doesn’t the EU take a fucking chill pill and see what actually happens
Frost-Nixon got 45 million for the first part.
1.5C from here, that might be meaningful. 1.5C from what was a colder age anyway, when we're already consistently at 1.2C is utterly meaningless rounding error stuff.
The Guardian discusses it here:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/feb/07/viagra-may-help-to-lower-the-risk-of-alzheimers-disease-study-finds
Putin is an existential threat to European harmony. The EU are perfectly entitled to sanction anyone who promotes conflict against peace in Europe.
https://x.com/uk8qnzl/status/1754997596521734573?s=20
He had a bevy of girls around him and every now and then someone would turn up wanting a ski he'd give them a spin round the bay. I spent most of the week with him and I spent the next several years wondering why I was working like a dog in London and wasn't doing what Joe was doing with his bevvy of girls not a care in the world driving his speedboat.
When did we become this morose place where we worry about someone from another country sleeping under a boat or even buying one if he wants to? What's wrong with foreigners being here? When did this obsession start?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clmjdnmle1eo
THE EU IS NOT SEEKING A TRAVEL BAN ON CARLSON
Of course, as a general point, the UK, for example, does ban people when it doesn't like what they say:
Here's an example from last year of the UK banning the Austrian nationalist at the centre of the Potsdam meeting that got millions of Germans demonstrating against the far-right the last few weeks, an American 'youtube commentator and author', and a Canadian 'right-wing activist':
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1GO2LP/
maybe Musk tweeted about that too
https://newsweek.com/tucker-carlson-sanctions-eu-putin-interview-1867655?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1707308234
Estonian Member of European Parliament
@Urmaspaet
Paet thinks that Tucker #Carlson interviewed a war criminal #Putin, expected in Hague and that does make him a journalist with any professional integrity, hence should have EU travel ban.
https://x.com/jaanikamerilo/status/1755309465711018115?s=20
"Tucker Carlson is surely on the path to being labelled a propagandist for the Russian regime.
If he enables disinformation for Putin, the EU should explore a travel ban !"
https://x.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1754517903167173061?s=20
And so on, and so forth
A new dentist has opened up in the town, in a very central location. And from what I see on their website, they don't take NHS patients.
We're lucky in that we can afford to go private. But many people we know can not, and some don't have cars to take them to NHS dentists elsewhere.
The system will have to change; I don't know in what way, though.