The meme of betrayal is quite strong on the Left. I have written a thread on just this topic which OGH may or may not use.
For a fictional version see, for instance, A Very British Coup by Chris Mullin or the TV series G.B.H.
Of course the events of November 1990 in the Conservative Party are in no way similar, For years afterward, there was huge ill-will among Conservatives over what happened and what the Party did to Margaret Thatcher.
No, it's not a left-right thing at all - look at what happened to IDS. The right are more than capable of treachery and betrayal (as are all other parties).
I don't quite see the need to make it a theme about the "left".
Until you've seen what I've written not sure how you can criticize it.
Of course betrayal is a universal theme. But in any case I didn't say that it is only the Left which indulges in betrayal themes. I was writing about the Left - or one particular bit of it - and was interested in what this particular issue might tell us.
And that McDonnell article which I didn't know about until about an hour ago is a very good example of what I had in mind.
Threads - and even posts - would be immensely tiresome if we had to append at the end the caveat that of course this particular example of human behavior occurs universally. Maybe we could take that as read. Whataboutery is rarely illuminating.
I hope I don't sound snippy: your posts and threads are some of the more interesting ones on here.
There is a wider lesson for anyone who cares to take note of it. The SNP do not speak for Scotland. At worst, they speak for less than half of it. Admittedly, what they lack in numbers, they compensate for in volume and arrogance. But it is a profound mistake for anybody trying to do “the right thing for Scotland” to listen only to demands being made by the ascendant minority.
That point has urgent application in the context of drum-beating for a second referendum on independence. While all the manoeuvring in preparation for such an announcement provides interminable media fodder, it is much more difficult for the majority who have absolutely no desire for such an event to make themselves heard. The mistake would be to discount them.
The PLP's problem stems back to Owen Thingy's challenge last year. Now Corbyn has had (And will have perhaps in May) poor actual election results, it would be the ideal time to give it a go. But they've given it a go once, and although they are entitled and probably should give it another push the utterly dire candidate and timing the first time round damages their ability to do so a second time.
I hope the Democrats and the neverTrump wing of the GOP takes note of that.
Thank god the Germans are no longer buying LSE because of Brexit. The more time that goes by since the vote the more sure I am it was the right decision.
Perhaps this lady has made errors but are we a nation that rigidly sticks to rules, is unbending and has a lack of compassion. I'd like to think not.
Our public sector has many Vogon type individuals working in it.
I would think few doubt that abuses of the immigration system have been widespread and in many cases the Home Office make correct judgments. They may say, and others here have echoed the view, that they have followed the "rules".
However in whose interests has it been that these rules have been enforced so rigidly? :
The family - clearly not and especially the British husband who has lost his carer and wife or the wider public and taxpayer who will have to provide care. Nor would I argue the Home Office that appear intransigent and heartless.
The winner is the "system" and all the jobsworths who sail in her and those that support them and opt for the "rules" at all costs at all times.
The alternative to fact based systems are ones that run on opinion which generate similar issues (Atos medical boarding, social care systems for children). The one advantage of a fact based system is that it is easier to administer.
In many of these issues, the government and public sector are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
I refer you to my comment at 9.37am.
It makes you wonder whether instead of all the man hours involved in deporting this woman that a Home Office bod couldn't at an early stage recognize the nature of this case and walk the family through the system.
However it seems as if the Home Office prefers to prosecute a worst case option rather than exercise a reasonable judgement for the benefit of a British family.
Or perhaps the family could have got advice on the rules from some good immigration lawyers, of which there are plenty.
I'm sceptical of cases trailed by newspapers - not because I don't accept that bureaucrats can't make silly decisions or decisions which are not in compliance with the law / rules - but because when it comes to newspaper reporting of cases where I know the full facts, the newspaper reports are invariably wrong or incomplete or sometimes both. Newspapers write stories; they rarely write the full story and they very often don't understand those facts and their import that they do write.
There is a wider lesson for anyone who cares to take note of it. The SNP do not speak for Scotland. At worst, they speak for less than half of it. Admittedly, what they lack in numbers, they compensate for in volume and arrogance. But it is a profound mistake for anybody trying to do “the right thing for Scotland” to listen only to demands being made by the ascendant minority.
That point has urgent application in the context of drum-beating for a second referendum on independence. While all the manoeuvring in preparation for such an announcement provides interminable media fodder, it is much more difficult for the majority who have absolutely no desire for such an event to make themselves heard. The mistake would be to discount them.
Yoon whining in national (sic) newspaper about not being heard, part 732.
Check this out, EUdivvie ;
"The National saw an annual fall in print sales of more than 30% to 8,500 average daily circulation in July to December. Its digital subscriptions fell even more steeply, to below 2,000. Only one other UK "regional" paper - in Wigan - reported a bigger fall in sales. The National was set up soon after the 2014 referendum by The Herald and Evening Times group in Glasgow, to appeal to pro-independence readers. "
Jeremy Corbyn’s new spin doctor is a lobbyist whose firm works for the Cumbria Success Regime, the controversial NHS programme which Labour said would kill babies in Copeland. Steve Howell, Jezza’s new Deputy Director of Strategy and Communications, is founder and director at PR company Freshwater. Their latest company accounts lists the Cumbria Success Regime among their top ten clients:
F1: just an idle musing. With the tyres so much bigger, that'd improve traction off the line, right? If starts are faster, then the penalty for screwing one up will be worse.
POLITICS ‘A Soft Coup Is Underway’ Against Jeremy Corbyn, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell Decares He says it’s an ‘alliance’ of Murdoch media empire and Labour plotters
The meme of betrayal is quite strong on the Left. I have written a thread on just this topic which OGH may or may not use.
For a fictional version see, for instance, A Very British Coup by Chris Mullin or the TV series G.B.H.
Worth noting in that context that Chris Mullin had by last Autumn come around to the following view on Corbyn: "One way or another Jeremy needs to be replaced by someone capable of offering strong leadership in both the party and the country. Labour needs to get its act together and fast. Failure to do so risks not merely defeat, but annihilation."
Perhaps this lady has made errors but are we a nation that rigidly sticks to rules, is unbending and has a lack of compassion. I'd like to think not.
Our public sector has many Vogon type individuals working in it.
I would think few doubt that abuses of the immigration system have been widespread and in many cases the Home Office make correct judgments. They may say, and others here have echoed the view, that they have followed the "rules".
However in whose interests has it been that these rules have been enforced so rigidly? :
The family - clearly not and especially the British husband who has lost his carer and wife or the wider public and taxpayer who will have to provide care. Nor would I argue the Home Office that appear intransigent and heartless.
The winner is the "system" and all the jobsworths who sail in her and those that support them and opt for the "rules" at all costs at all times.
The alternative to fact based systems are ones that run on opinion which generate similar issues (Atos medical boarding, social care systems for children). The one advantage of a fact based system is that it is easier to administer.
In many of these issues, the government and public sector are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
I refer you to my comment at 9.37am.
It makes you wonder whether instead of all the man hours involved in deporting this woman that a Home Office bod couldn't at an early stage recognize the nature of this case and walk the family through the system.
However it seems as if the Home Office prefers to prosecute a worst case option rather than exercise a reasonable judgement for the benefit of a British family.
Or perhaps the family could have got advice on the rules from some good immigration lawyers, of which there are plenty.
I'm sceptical of cases trailed by newspapers - not because I don't accept that bureaucrats can't make silly decisions or decisions which are not in compliance with the law / rules - but because when it comes to newspaper reporting of cases where I know the full facts, the newspaper reports are invariably wrong or incomplete or sometimes both. Newspapers write stories; they rarely write the full story and they very often don't understand those facts and their import that they do write.
The same goes for other fields, of course. Science reporting in newspapers has deteriorated markedly over the last couple of decades, and it often wasn't good before that.
The PLP's problem stems back to Owen Thingy's challenge last year. Now Corbyn has had (And will have perhaps in May) poor actual election results, it would be the ideal time to give it a go. But they've given it a go once, and although they are entitled and probably should give it another push the utterly dire candidate and timing the first time round damages their ability to do so a second time.
I think Labour supporters are overfixated on the many deficiencies of Corbyn and whether to get rid of him and not enough on what they actually need to do, which is to win votes from actual or potential Conservative supporters. They are chasing the chimera of a "progressive alliance" where the "new politics Corbyn" will enthuse non-voters, Lib Dems and Greens. Leaving aside the observation that Copeland saw Labour voters move the other way into the arms of non-voting and the LDs, there just aren't the LD and Green numbers to switch and, of course, the important thing about non-voters is that they don't vote.
If core Labour supporters realise they are in a competitive situation and the only way out of their mess is the hard way of winning over supporters of their opponents, the rest will fall into place. They will choose the leader who can do that. They are a long way from working this out - and that's not just the Corbynista faction.
Perhaps this lady has made errors but are we a nation that rigidly sticks to rules, is unbending and has a lack of compassion. I'd like to think not.
Our public sector has many Vogon type individuals working in it.
I would think few doubt that abuses of the immigration system have been widespread and in many cases the Home Office make correct judgments. They may say, and others here have echoed the view, that they have followed the "rules".
However in whose interests has it been that these rules have been enforced so rigidly? :
The family - clearly not and especially the British husband who has lost his carer and wife or the wider public and taxpayer who will have to provide care. Nor would I argue the Home Office that appear intransigent and heartless.
The winner is the "system" and all the jobsworths who sail in her and those that support them and opt for the "rules" at all costs at all times.
The alternative to fact based systems are ones that run on opinion which generate similar issues (Atos medical boarding, social care systems for children). The one advantage of a fact based system is that it is easier to administer.
In many of these issues, the government and public sector are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
I refer you to my comment at 9.37am.
It makes you wonder whether instead of all the man hours involved in deporting this woman that a Home Office bod couldn't at an early stage recognize the nature of this case and walk the family through the system.
However it seems as if the Home Office prefers to prosecute a worst case option rather than exercise a reasonable judgement for the benefit of a British family.
Or perhaps the family could have got advice on the rules from some good immigration lawyers, of which there are plenty.
I'm sceptical of cases trailed by newspapers - not because I don't accept that bureaucrats can't make silly decisions or decisions which are not in compliance with the law / rules - but because when it comes to newspaper reporting of cases where I know the full facts, the newspaper reports are invariably wrong or incomplete or sometimes both. Newspapers write stories; they rarely write the full story and they very often don't understand those facts and their import that they do write.
What is very bad from the media side is that buzzfeed and the bbc reports are at best "incomplete". You have to go to a tiny media outlet just to even get the bare bones of the timeline, which makes a huge difference to the perception given by especially buzzfeed.
I'm sceptical of cases trailed by newspapers - not because I don't accept that bureaucrats can't make silly decisions or decisions which are not in compliance with the law / rules - but because when it comes to newspaper reporting of cases where I know the full facts, the newspaper reports are invariably wrong or incomplete or sometimes both. Newspapers write stories; they rarely write the full story and they very often don't understand those facts and their import that they do write.
Love this last paragraph. Exactly sums up how I feel when particular cases get "campaigned" for - I rarely feel I have enough information (once the heart-string fluff is stripped out, and when you've thought critically for a little while about what additional information might be missing) to know whether the cause is as supportable as it seemed at first sight. Two points I raised FPT (sorry for the repost, but suspect the night crew audience and day crew are largely distinct):
(1) The law is an ass. (2) Hard cases make bad law.
Always going to be a tough call between discretion (whether "compassionate" or merely "sensible") and consistency. And at its core consistency has a value, and a justice, in its own right, be its edges oft ugly.
If I were The Big Boss, I'd let her stay in Britain, partly because of her previous ties (albeit she was the one who severed them) but mostly because letting her stay may be less of a drain on the exchequer than forcing her to leave, bearing in mind the care services she is providing for free.
That Sri Lankan Tamil lass in Wales, failed asylum seeker with just a couple of weeks of uni left before she graduates in a STEM shortage subject? I'd let her stay too. Just to finish off the degree. The British taxpayer has spent a stupid amount on her education if we include her time at secondary school in Britain - and bearing in mind how unlikely we are to get her student loan paid back to us, we are likely talking in the region of £50k all told. Utter waste of money if we don't let her finish the thing off. If she then has to leave the country this summer, but gets the chance to apply for skills-shortage jobs here that could earn her a visa, that sounds fair enough to me.
But then I'm a soppy sod. I'd probably say "stay" too often. What happens when someone's son is half-way through the degree - too near the end to kick them out? Or just started the first term, can't we let them do another 3 years here? And so it goes on.
F1: just an idle musing. With the tyres so much bigger, that'd improve traction off the line, right? If starts are faster, then the penalty for screwing one up will be worse.
If the tyres were the same as last year's but wider, then yes the cars should be faster off the line as there's more rubber to get the power down. Apparently the new tyres are harder than last year, which would make them slower off the line. I guess we'll have to see in Melbourne in a few weeks.
Random F1 fact: An F1 car (2016 model) accelerates from 60-120mph faster than it gets from 0-60.
Jeremy Corbyn’s new spin doctor is a lobbyist whose firm works for the Cumbria Success Regime, the controversial NHS programme which Labour said would kill babies in Copeland. Steve Howell, Jezza’s new Deputy Director of Strategy and Communications, is founder and director at PR company Freshwater. Their latest company accounts lists the Cumbria Success Regime among their top ten clients:
Most of the accounts are omitting non-trivial details.
Arrived UK 1988 Married 1992 - granted indefinite leave to remain - provided she did 'remain' 1993 - left UK 1999 - returned to UK - 'indefinite leave to remain' had lapsed as she had not done what she'd said she'd do and 'remained' 1999 - applied for indefinite leave to remain - has been turned down multiple times.
When you apply for 'indefinite leave to remain' its made very clear that you do have to 'remain' and prolonged absences - a couple of years, say - would lead to it being revoked - she was out for six.
More likely she applied for temporary entry visas, which were turned down.
As a Singaporean she can come to the UK without a visa
for reasons that haven't been revealed, she didn't get a Family of a Settled Person visa either.
She's had 18 years to sort something out......
Perhaps so and the family may have made all sorts of mistakes over the years.
However to my mind the essence of this story is whether their marriage of 27 years is a scam and should government agencies be there in the interests of their citizens both as individuals and in collective greater good.
The winner is the "system" and all the jobsworths who sail in her and those that support them and opt for the "rules" at all costs at all times.
The alternative to fact based systems are ones that run on opinion which generate similar issues (Atos medical boarding, social care systems for children). The one advantage of a fact based system is that it is easier to administer.
In many of these issues, the government and public sector are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
I refer you to my comment at 9.37am.
It makes you wonder whether instead of all the man hours involved in deporting this woman that a Home Office bod couldn't at an early stage recognize the nature of this case and walk the family through the system.
However it seems as if the Home Office prefers to prosecute a worst case option rather than exercise a reasonable judgement for the benefit of a British family.
Or perhaps the family could have got advice on the rules from some good immigration lawyers, of which there are plenty.
I'm sceptical of cases trailed by newspapers - not because I don't accept that bureaucrats can't make silly decisions or decisions which are not in compliance with the law / rules - but because when it comes to newspaper reporting of cases where I know the full facts, the newspaper reports are invariably wrong or incomplete or sometimes both. Newspapers write stories; they rarely write the full story and they very often don't understand those facts and their import that they do write.
The same goes for other fields, of course. Science reporting in newspapers has deteriorated markedly over the last couple of decades, and it often wasn't good before that.
Reporting of almost anything technical is terrible. I work in IT and have a keen interest in aviation, almost every mainstream press report on either is inaccurate at best, misleading at worst.
It used to be that a science correspondent was a scientist who learned journalism, now it's more likely he's a journalist who learned science. Not as easy to do it the second way round, especially when sub-editors and researchers have disappeared as quickly as they have.
The meme of betrayal is quite strong on the Left. I have written a thread on just this topic which OGH may or may not use.
For a fictional version see, for instance, A Very British Coup by Chris Mullin or the TV series G.B.H.
Worth noting in that context that Chris Mullin had by last Autumn come around to the following view on Corbyn: "One way or another Jeremy needs to be replaced by someone capable of offering strong leadership in both the party and the country. Labour needs to get its act together and fast. Failure to do so risks not merely defeat, but annihilation."
I have very little sympathy for the PLP on this. Back in 2015 they had one job to do: to nominate those candidates whom they thought capable of being leader and PM. Out of sentimentality and/or stupidity they nominated someone whom they didn't think was so capable. A bit much of them now to complain that a useless candidate has turned out to be a useless leader.
They have reaped what they sowed.
(And they've been pretty bloody useless since then, as well.)
I'm sceptical of cases trailed by newspapers - not because I don't accept that bureaucrats can't make silly decisions or decisions which are not in compliance with the law / rules - but because when it comes to newspaper reporting of cases where I know the full facts, the newspaper reports are invariably wrong or incomplete or sometimes both. Newspapers write stories; they rarely write the full story and they very often don't understand those facts and their import that they do write.
What is very bad from the media side is that buzzfeed and the bbc reports are at best "incomplete". You have to go to a tiny media outlet just to even get the bare bones of the timeline, which makes a huge difference to the perception given by especially buzzfeed.
I've wondered whether that might partly because of difficulty getting verification of the fine details. I could live with that.
I would be disappointed, but could understand somewhat, if the point was to keep the article to a manageable length (a rather low view of readers' ability to take in information, and they could also post and link a separate "timeline" article for the finer facts if - as here - they were still relevant).
I would very upset - particularly with the BBC, though I know that newspapers do this all the bleeding time and Buzzfeed is little more than an internet tabloid - if the key facts are omitted in order to make the story "better". More sympathizable. More anger-inducing. More shareable on social media. Less, "well actually, considering all the facts, this might have been a reasonable decision".
The fact the BBC omits some of the very most important facts, and they wouldn't have taken a lot of space, makes me lean much more towards the third option than the second. I really hope it's the first, but my faith isn't all that high in it...
I'm sceptical of cases trailed by newspapers - not because I don't accept that bureaucrats can't make silly decisions or decisions which are not in compliance with the law / rules - but because when it comes to newspaper reporting of cases where I know the full facts, the newspaper reports are invariably wrong or incomplete or sometimes both. Newspapers write stories; they rarely write the full story and they very often don't understand those facts and their import that they do write.
What is very bad from the media side is that buzzfeed and the bbc reports are at best "incomplete". You have to go to a tiny media outlet just to even get the bare bones of the timeline, which makes a huge difference to the perception given by especially buzzfeed.
I've wondered whether that might partly because of difficulty getting verification of the fine details. I could live with that.
I would be disappointed, but could understand somewhat, if the point was to keep the article to a manageable length (a rather low view of readers' ability to take in information, and they could also post and link a separate "timeline" article for the finer facts if - as here - they were still relevant).
I would very upset - particularly with the BBC, though I know that newspapers do this all the bleeding time and Buzzfeed is little more than an internet tabloid - if the key facts are omitted in order to make the story "better". More sympathizable. More anger-inducing. More shareable on social media. Less, "well actually, considering all the facts, this might have been a reasonable decision".
The fact the BBC omits some of the very most important facts, and they wouldn't have taken a lot of space, makes me lean much more towards the third option than the second. I really hope it's the first, but my faith isn't all that high in it...
Buzzfeed were deliberately misleading. The headline was pure click-bait (and inaccurate) and I am seeing shared widely online. The BBC article reads in a similar, but more measured vein to Buzzfeed article.
As for the details, I believe they were also in the Sunday Times, which I think from the BBC point of view has to be a reliable source.
If it had been Paul Nuttalls wife being deported during the Stoke campaign, the partisan traffic wardens would be saying "they knew the rules! Clause 3 paragraph iv clearly states etc etc"
This is because the formula is based on gilt yields, or the interest rate on government bonds.
By the time inflation is taken into account, real returns on such bonds have become negative.
The decision looks correct. Interest rates on risk-free assets are currently negative, so the compensation lump sum is losing value. It's the exact and fair converse of why there has normally been a positive discount rate.
The PLP's problem stems back to Owen Thingy's challenge last year. Now Corbyn has had (And will have perhaps in May) poor actual election results, it would be the ideal time to give it a go. But they've given it a go once, and although they are entitled and probably should give it another push the utterly dire candidate and timing the first time round damages their ability to do so a second time.
I think Labour supporters are overfixated on the many deficiencies of Corbyn and whether to get rid of him and not enough on what they actually need to do, which is to win votes from actual or potential Conservative supporters. They are chasing the chimera of a "progressive alliance" where the "new politics Corbyn" will enthuse non-voters, Lib Dems and Greens. Leaving aside the observation that Copeland saw Labour voters move the other way into the arms of non-voting and the LDs, there just aren't the LD and Green numbers to switch and, of course, the important thing about non-voters is that they don't vote.
If core Labour supporters realise they are in a competitive situation and the only way out of their mess is the hard way of winning over supporters of their opponents, the rest will fall into place. They will choose the leader who can do that. They are a long way from working this out - and that's not just the Corbynista faction.
Exactly. The non-voters theory just had the perfect test in a by-election for the constituency with the lowest GE2015 turnout. Yes, Labour held on, but not because of this imaginary gaggle of non-voters enthused by Corbyn.
If it had been Paul Nuttalls wife being deported during the Stoke campaign, the partisan traffic wardens would be saying "they knew the rules! Clause 3 paragraph iv clearly states etc etc"
I think he might have been in some serious political trouble for harbouring somebody who he knew was here illegally.
If it had been Paul Nuttalls wife being deported during the Stoke campaign, the partisan traffic wardens would be saying "they knew the rules! Clause 3 paragraph iv clearly states etc etc"
A hypothetical too far, I think. But you may get to run a similar argument in real life, since presumably Nuttall's failure to be elected is no bar to the filth continuing to investigate the residence issue.
As a former potential UKIP candidate, do you think the monstering of Nuttall by the press throughout the campaign will put potential future candidates off standing?
The alternative to fact based systems are ones that run on opinion which generate similar issues (Atos medical boarding, social care systems for children). The one advantage of a fact based system is that it is easier to administer.
In many of these issues, the government and public sector are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
I refer you to my comment at 9.37am.
It makes you wonder whether instead of all the man hours involved in deporting this woman that a Home Office bod couldn't at an early stage recognize the nature of this case and walk the family through the system.
However it seems as if the Home Office prefers to prosecute a worst case option rather than exercise a reasonable judgement for the benefit of a British family.
Or perhaps the family could have got advice on the rules from some good immigration lawyers, of which there are plenty.
I'm sceptical of cases trailed by newspapers - not because I don't accept that bureaucrats can't make silly decisions or decisions which are not in compliance with the law / rules - but because when it comes to newspaper reporting of cases where I know the full facts, the newspaper reports are invariably wrong or incomplete or sometimes both. Newspapers write stories; they rarely write the full story and they very often don't understand those facts and their import that they do write.
The same goes for other fields, of course. Science reporting in newspapers has deteriorated markedly over the last couple of decades, and it often wasn't good before that.
Reporting of almost anything technical is terrible. I work in IT and have a keen interest in aviation, almost every mainstream press report on either is inaccurate at best, misleading at worst.
It used to be that a science correspondent was a scientist who learned journalism, now it's more likely he's a journalist who learned science. Not as easy to do it the second way round, especially when sub-editors and researchers have disappeared as quickly as they have.
The same applies in TV too. There was a programme about the 447 flight from Brazil to Paris which crashed into the Atlantic which failed to ask the obvious question about why the pilots did not fly around a storm they had been warned about. The answer - as told to me by some pilots - is rather more worrying than the errors which the pilots made once the plane was in the storm.
Mr. Enjineeya, a year or two ago the BBC reported on the blue light of e-readers being proven scientifically to alter a chemical level (forget the precise name) which inhibited sleep.
Except it wasn't e-readers. It was tablets, upon which e-books were read, and the screens are fundamentally different.
Mr. Sandpit, cheers. Engineering isn't something I know much about. Very counter-intuitive acceleration stat, but I can see how it could be the case.
Sounds like the increased downforce will make a significant pace difference. Could have some implications also for G-forces/necks on particular circuits.
This is because the formula is based on gilt yields, or the interest rate on government bonds.
By the time inflation is taken into account, real returns on such bonds have become negative.
The decision looks correct. Interest rates on risk-free assets are currently negative, so the compensation lump sum is losing value. It's the exact and fair converse of why there has normally been a positive discount rate.
I am not sure what we are talking about here; is it about the calculation of the reserves ins cos are required to hold to meet future liabilities, or is it about the interest added to (or perhaps now subtracted from) damages over the period claim arising to judgment issued? It would seem equitable that the two should move in sync.
The alternative to fact based systems are ones that run on opinion which generate similar issues (Atos medical boarding, social care systems for children). The one advantage of a fact based system is that it is easier to administer.
In many of these issues, the government and public sector are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
I refer you to my comment at 9.37am.
It makes you wonder whether instead of all the man hours involved in deporting this woman that a Home Office bod couldn't at an early stage recognize the nature of this case and walk the family through the system.
However it seems as if the Home Office prefers to prosecute a worst case option rather than exercise a reasonable judgement for the benefit of a British family.
Or perhaps the family could have got advice on the rules from some good immigration lawyers, of which there are plenty.
I'm sceptical of cases trailed by newspapers - not because I don't accept that bureaucrats can't make silly decisions or decisions which are not in compliance with the law / rules - but because when it comes to newspaper reporting of cases where I know the full facts, the newspaper reports are invariably wrong or incomplete or sometimes both. Newspapers write stories; they rarely write the full story and they very often don't understand those facts and their import that they do write.
The same goes for other fields, of course. Science reporting in newspapers has deteriorated markedly over the last couple of decades, and it often wasn't good before that.
Reporting of almost anything technical is terrible. I work in IT and have a keen interest in aviation, almost every mainstream press report on either is inaccurate at best, misleading at worst.
It used to be that a science correspondent was a scientist who learned journalism, now it's more likely he's a journalist who learned science. Not as easy to do it the second way round, especially when sub-editors and researchers have disappeared as quickly as they have.
The same applies in TV too. There was a programme about the 447 flight from Brazil to Paris which crashed into the Atlantic which failed to ask the obvious question about why the pilots did not fly around a storm they had been warned about. The answer - as told to me by some pilots - is rather more worrying than the errors which the pilots made once the plane was in the storm.
It makes you wonder whether instead of all the man hours involved in deporting this woman that a Home Office bod couldn't at an early stage recognize the nature of this case and walk the family through the system.
However it seems as if the Home Office prefers to prosecute a worst case option rather than exercise a reasonable judgement for the benefit of a British family.
Or perhaps the family could have got advice on the rules from some good immigration lawyers, of which there are plenty.
I'm sceptical of cases trailed by newspapers - not because I don't accept that bureaucrats can't make silly decisions or decisions which are not in compliance with the law / rules - but because when it comes to newspaper reporting of cases where I know the full facts, the newspaper reports are invariably wrong or incomplete or sometimes both. Newspapers write stories; they rarely write the full story and they very often don't understand those facts and their import that they do write.
The same goes for other fields, of course. Science reporting in newspapers has deteriorated markedly over the last couple of decades, and it often wasn't good before that.
Reporting of almost anything technical is terrible. I work in IT and have a keen interest in aviation, almost every mainstream press report on either is inaccurate at best, misleading at worst.
It used to be that a science correspondent was a scientist who learned journalism, now it's more likely he's a journalist who learned science. Not as easy to do it the second way round, especially when sub-editors and researchers have disappeared as quickly as they have.
The same applies in TV too. There was a programme about the 447 flight from Brazil to Paris which crashed into the Atlantic which failed to ask the obvious question about why the pilots did not fly around a storm they had been warned about. The answer - as told to me by some pilots - is rather more worrying than the errors which the pilots made once the plane was in the storm.
You really, really don't want to know the answer to that particular accident. Let's just say I never fly Air France.
If it had been Paul Nuttalls wife being deported during the Stoke campaign, the partisan traffic wardens would be saying "they knew the rules! Clause 3 paragraph iv clearly states etc etc"
A hypothetical too far, I think. But you may get to run a similar argument in real life, since presumably Nuttall's failure to be elected is no bar to the filth continuing to investigate the residence issue.
As a former potential UKIP candidate, do you think the monstering of Nuttall by the press throughout the campaign will put potential future candidates off standing?
Definitely. What normal person hasn't done things in the past that they don't want splashed all over the papers?! And can you imagine the Enoch Powell quotes from here?! A ukip fellow told me that conservative HQ had students raking through every ukip candidates social media history and they go after your family too.. who needs that?
I am not sure what we are talking about here; is it about the calculation of the reserves ins cos are required to hold to meet future liabilities, or is it about the interest added to (or perhaps now subtracted from) damages over the period claim arising to judgment issued?
The latter, but the change is to add a sum to the damages, to compensate the victim for the fact that the lump-sump, sitting in risk-free assets, is now expected to lose value over the decades that the person needs the money to finance their care.
The winner is the "system" and all the jobsworths who sail in her and those that support them and opt for the "rules" at all costs at all times.
The alternative to fact based systems are ones that run on opinion which generate similar issues (Atos medical boarding, social care systems for children). The one advantage of a fact based system is that it is easier to administer.
In many of these issues, the government and public sector are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
I refer you to my comment at 9.37am.
It makes you wonder whether instead of all the man hours involved in deporting this woman that a Home Office bod couldn't at an early stage recognize the nature of this case and walk the family through the system.
However it seems as if the Home Office prefers to prosecute a worst case option rather than exercise a reasonable judgement for the benefit of a British family.
Or perhaps the family could have got advice on the rules from some good immigration lawyers, of which there are plenty.
I'm sceptical of cases trailed by newspapers - not because I don't accept that bureaucrats can't make silly decisions or decisions which are not in compliance with the law / rules - but because when it comes to newspaper reporting of cases where I know the full facts, the newspaper reports are invariably wrong or incomplete or sometimes both. Newspapers write stories; they rarely write the full story and they very often don't understand those facts and their import that they do write.
The same goes for other fields, of course. Science reporting in newspapers has deteriorated markedly over the last couple of decades, and it often wasn't good before that.
Reporting of almost anything technical is terrible. I work in IT and have a keen interest in aviation, almost every mainstream press report on either is inaccurate at best, misleading at worst.
It used to be that a science correspondent was a scientist who learned journalism, now it's more likely he's a journalist who learned science. Not as easy to do it the second way round, especially when sub-editors and researchers have disappeared as quickly as they have.
I keep bees as a hobby.. 11 hives. Reporting on beekeeping is absymally incorrect. Dumbed down by journalists who have no time to write properly I suspect. Not helped by many "Natural" beekeepers (some of whom are great) who quote junk science. Even the scientific community when doing research into the impact of pesticides on bees gets it wrong...
Reporting of almost anything technical is terrible. I work in IT and have a keen interest in aviation, almost every mainstream press report on either is inaccurate at best, misleading at worst.
It used to be that a science correspondent was a scientist who learned journalism, now it's more likely he's a journalist who learned science. Not as easy to do it the second way round, especially when sub-editors and researchers have disappeared as quickly as they have.
A true classic of the genre was when the Independent reported that WhatsApp were increasing their group chat size limit to 256 people. Their technology and science reporter wrote that it was "not clear why WhatsApp settled on the oddly specific number."
This is because the formula is based on gilt yields, or the interest rate on government bonds.
By the time inflation is taken into account, real returns on such bonds have become negative.
The decision looks correct. Interest rates on risk-free assets are currently negative, so the compensation lump sum is losing value. It's the exact and fair converse of why there has normally been a positive discount rate.
Hmmm.....Not sure I believe there is such a thing as a risk free asset. Countries can go bankrupt too. If government bonds are soft defaulted through rampant inflation that is still an impairment is it not?
Reporting of almost anything technical is terrible. I work in IT and have a keen interest in aviation, almost every mainstream press report on either is inaccurate at best, misleading at worst.
It used to be that a science correspondent was a scientist who learned journalism, now it's more likely he's a journalist who learned science. Not as easy to do it the second way round, especially when sub-editors and researchers have disappeared as quickly as they have.
A true classic of the genre was when the Independent reported that WhatsApp were increasing their group chat size limit to 256 people. Their technology and science reporter wrote that it was "not clear why WhatsApp settled on the oddly specific number."
Or perhaps the family could have got advice on the rules from some good immigration lawyers, of which there are plenty.
I'm sceptical of cases trailed by newspapers - not because I don't accept that bureaucrats can't make silly decisions or decisions which are not in compliance with the law / rules - but because when it comes to newspaper reporting of cases where I know the full facts, the newspaper reports are invariably wrong or incomplete or sometimes both. Newspapers write stories; they rarely write the full story and they very often don't understand those facts and their import that they do write.
Again I don't say the family haven't made mistakes, perhaps many. However notwithstanding the "crusading" of many newspapers on the case few seem to doubt that they are a genuine family in difficult circumstances that the Home Office seem determined to undermine and breakup because the "rules" says so.
Hmmm.....Not sure I believe there is such a thing as a risk free asset. Countries can go bankrupt too. If government bonds are soft defaulted through rampant inflation that is still an impairment is it not?
It's the standard term in finance, but, yes, nothing is 100% risk-free.
Reporting of almost anything technical is terrible. I work in IT and have a keen interest in aviation, almost every mainstream press report on either is inaccurate at best, misleading at worst.
It used to be that a science correspondent was a scientist who learned journalism, now it's more likely he's a journalist who learned science. Not as easy to do it the second way round, especially when sub-editors and researchers have disappeared as quickly as they have.
A true classic of the genre was when the Independent reported that WhatsApp were increasing their group chat size limit to 256 people. Their technology and science reporter wrote that it was "not clear why WhatsApp settled on the oddly specific number."
Your modern day tech journalist is more likely to get the gig for what they know about social media rather than the underlying technicalities no matter how basic they are.
I am not sure what we are talking about here; is it about the calculation of the reserves ins cos are required to hold to meet future liabilities, or is it about the interest added to (or perhaps now subtracted from) damages over the period claim arising to judgment issued?
The latter, but the change is to add a sum to the damages, to compensate the victim for the fact that the lump-sump, sitting in risk-free assets, is now expected to lose value over the decades that the person needs the money to finance their care.
Perhaps a superior solution would be to give an inflation adjusted sum every year of the claimant's life (With perhaps an additional sum in the first year to cover initial extra (Home conversion say) costs etc) ? As I see it if real interest rates turn net positive again then these people will have been overcompensated, in the same way that those who had compensation when real interest rates were positive are now losing out.
Reporting of almost anything technical is terrible. I work in IT and have a keen interest in aviation, almost every mainstream press report on either is inaccurate at best, misleading at worst.
It used to be that a science correspondent was a scientist who learned journalism, now it's more likely he's a journalist who learned science. Not as easy to do it the second way round, especially when sub-editors and researchers have disappeared as quickly as they have.
A true classic of the genre was when the Independent reported that WhatsApp were increasing their group chat size limit to 256 people. Their technology and science reporter wrote that it was "not clear why WhatsApp settled on the oddly specific number."
There was a 9.2% swing from the Conservatives to Labour in Gorton in 2015. An astonishing result given the national trends. I don't think I have seen a bigger swing in favour of Labour at that election.
Of course it was results like this that made the Labour vote so much less efficient than it had been in the Blair landslides. Piling up votes where they did least good.
I think Corbyn exacerbates that tendency too. He does appeal to a hard core Labour supporter far more left wing that the country as a whole. Kieran's analysis shows that this is at the cost of repelling those whose support is needed to do well overall. If that is right then the current polling/electoral models probably understate the damage he would do in an election campaign.
I'd have thought Manchester Gorton (like Brighton, Cambridge, Bristol West, and left-wing inner London) is Corbynism ground zero.
If nothing else it should tell us about the measure of his current appeal in his heartlands.
Well the seat very nearly went Tory at the November 1967 by election and was also very close at the 1959 & 1955 general elections - admittedly on different boundaries!
Or perhaps the family could have got advice on the rules from some good immigration lawyers, of which there are plenty.
I'm sceptical of cases trailed by newspapers - not because I don't accept that bureaucrats can't make silly decisions or decisions which are not in compliance with the law / rules - but because when it comes to newspaper reporting of cases where I know the full facts, the newspaper reports are invariably wrong or incomplete or sometimes both. Newspapers write stories; they rarely write the full story and they very often don't understand those facts and their import that they do write.
Again I don't say the family haven't made mistakes, perhaps many. However notwithstanding the "crusading" of many newspapers on the case few seem to doubt that they are a genuine family in difficult circumstances that the Home Office seem determined to undermine and breakup because the "rules" says so.
Just a thought; what happens if she applies to come back to visit her granddaughter. Or, if her son and his wife have another baby, will she be allowed back to see that?
If it had been Paul Nuttalls wife being deported during the Stoke campaign, the partisan traffic wardens would be saying "they knew the rules! Clause 3 paragraph iv clearly states etc etc"
A hypothetical too far, I think. But you may get to run a similar argument in real life, since presumably Nuttall's failure to be elected is no bar to the filth continuing to investigate the residence issue.
As a former potential UKIP candidate, do you think the monstering of Nuttall by the press throughout the campaign will put potential future candidates off standing?
Definitely. What normal person hasn't done things in the past that they don't want splashed all over the papers?! And can you imagine the Enoch Powell quotes from here?! A ukip fellow told me that conservative HQ had students raking through every ukip candidates social media history and they go after your family too.. who needs that?
If anyone says things in print, on radio, TV or on social media they should expect it to be seen. If they regret what they have said and also put that out in social media that should also be seen. In what way was Nuttall 'monstered' rather than reported?
Who says God doesn't have a sense of humour....Luvvies queue up to denounce White House chaos......and then screw up the biggest announcement of the lot!
Mr. Song, it was a legitimate story (on Nuttall) to report, but the BBC reported it three days in a row. The Hell-Snell comments (possibly due to being reported to the police) didn't get a mention on the main news programmes.
There was also no mention of the exaggerated claims of the Copeland Labour candidate.
Nuttally screwed up and got deserved censure, but that doesn't mean double standards aren't being applied.
The same applies in TV too. There was a programme about the 447 flight from Brazil to Paris which crashed into the Atlantic which failed to ask the obvious question about why the pilots did not fly around a storm they had been warned about. The answer - as told to me by some pilots - is rather more worrying than the errors which the pilots made once the plane was in the storm.
AFAIK the weather wasn't unusual for that flight at that time of the year and it wasn't identified as a contributory factor in the Air Accident Report. The pitot tunes that measured airspeed weren't working, but the main factors were pilots ignoring instrument readings and making the rookie error of attempting to ascend out of a stall (you should accelerate on the level). Basically the pilots hadn't been trained properly. There were also seniority issues in the three man cockpit, which seems to be a not unusual issue. In this case the captain sitting on the left hand side saw the airplane take off and handed over to the junior second officer. Because he was sitting in the left seat he claimed seniority over the first officer who stayed in the right seat, even though the latter had more experience. The captain came back into the cockpit to ask, what the hell is going on, but it was too late.
Just a thought; what happens if she applies to come back to visit her granddaughter. Or, if her son and his wife have another baby, will she be allowed back to see that?
Who knows? ..... Probably either met at Heathrow by a government minister with flowers and the Daily Mail in tow or face rendition to Ulan Bator as an "enemy of the people."
I really haven't the foggiest notion but then again the same would probably be true of the Home Office.
There was a 9.2% swing from the Conservatives to Labour in Gorton in 2015. An astonishing result given the national trends. I don't think I have seen a bigger swing in favour of Labour at that election.
Of course it was results like this that made the Labour vote so much less efficient than it had been in the Blair landslides. Piling up votes where they did least good.
I think Corbyn exacerbates that tendency too. He does appeal to a hard core Labour supporter far more left wing that the country as a whole. Kieran's analysis shows that this is at the cost of repelling those whose support is needed to do well overall. If that is right then the current polling/electoral models probably understate the damage he would do in an election campaign.
I'd have thought Manchester Gorton (like Brighton, Cambridge, Bristol West, and left-wing inner London) is Corbynism ground zero.
If nothing else it should tell us about the measure of his current appeal in his heartlands.
Well the seat very nearly went Tory at the November 1967 by election and was also very close at the 1959 & 1955 general elections - admittedly on different boundaries!
It was a very different electorate then. Whalley Range was solidly middle class.
I'm going to the funeral of John Kershaw next week, who was the Conservative candidate here in 1983 and 1987.
Mr. Song, it was a legitimate story (on Nuttall) to report, but the BBC reported it three days in a row. The Hell-Snell comments (possibly due to being reported to the police) didn't get a mention on the main news programmes.
There was also no mention of the exaggerated claims of the Copeland Labour candidate.
Nuttally screwed up and got deserved censure, but that doesn't mean double standards aren't being applied.
Nuttall got done over by a mediocre Labour candidate in the "Capital of Brexit" which was described as a 'Soggy pile of shit' by Mr Snell - who also had some choice previous quotes about their leader. Almost beaten into third by the non trying Tories. It was a dismal result and he only has himself to blame.
If it had been Paul Nuttalls wife being deported during the Stoke campaign, the partisan traffic wardens would be saying "they knew the rules! Clause 3 paragraph iv clearly states etc etc"
A hypothetical too far, I think. But you may get to run a similar argument in real life, since presumably Nuttall's failure to be elected is no bar to the filth continuing to investigate the residence issue.
As a former potential UKIP candidate, do you think the monstering of Nuttall by the press throughout the campaign will put potential future candidates off standing?
Definitely. What normal person hasn't done things in the past that they don't want splashed all over the papers?! And can you imagine the Enoch Powell quotes from here?! A ukip fellow told me that conservative HQ had students raking through every ukip candidates social media history and they go after your family too.. who needs that?
If anyone says things in print, on radio, TV or on social media they should expect it to be seen. If they regret what they have said and also put that out in social media that should also be seen. In what way was Nuttall 'monstered' rather than reported?
No one has any proof, and I doubt it is possible to prove, that Nuttall wasn't at Hillsborough on the day of the disaster. As a Liverpool season ticket holder, I doubt he would tell such an outrageous lie and be able to attend games. The left made it up in order to smear him and stop ukip winning the seat.
I agree with you re social media, & to be honest I don't think there is anything I have said that I couldn't back up, but I don't think I could be bothered to have to defend myself constantly for two months over molehills that are being made into mountains
Also, I have two parents who are pensioners with high blood pressure, one of whom is a nervous wreck at the best of times & they wouldn't need the hassle and stress either. I mentioned on here years ago how my dad was forced out of his job by PC nutcases, that can of worms would have been reopened too no doubt
Who says God doesn't have a sense of humour....Luvvies queue up to denounce White House chaos......and then screw up the biggest announcement of the lot!
... but it doesn't matter. What Trump does will matter.
Perhaps a superior solution would be to give an inflation adjusted sum every year of the claimant's life (With perhaps an additional sum in the first year to cover initial extra (Home conversion say) costs etc) ? As I see it if real interest rates turn net positive again then these people will have been overcompensated, in the same way that those who had compensation when real interest rates were positive are now losing out.
Both sides need closure. If insurance companies were taking on an unknown future liability for future inflation, they'd have to set aside a lot more capital. In practice, they'd probably buy inflation-linked government bonds to cover the liability, and since those currently have negative yields, the net effect would be similar.
You are right that some people may end up being over-compensated and some under-compensated, but that's equally true in annuities or any other long-term financial settlement. In any case, I suspect that uncertainty over future medical and care requirements hugely outweighs financial uncertainty.
Or perhaps the family could have got advice on the rules from some good immigration lawyers, of which there are plenty.
I'm sceptical of cases trailed by newspapers - not because I don't accept that bureaucrats can't make silly decisions or decisions which are not in compliance with the law / rules - but because when it comes to newspaper reporting of cases where I know the full facts, the newspaper reports are invariably wrong or incomplete or sometimes both. Newspapers write stories; they rarely write the full story and they very often don't understand those facts and their import that they do write.
Again I don't say the family haven't made mistakes, perhaps many. However notwithstanding the "crusading" of many newspapers on the case few seem to doubt that they are a genuine family in difficult circumstances that the Home Office seem determined to undermine and breakup because the "rules" says so.
That may well be the case. I don't know the facts.
But you can't apply the law on the basis of sympathy votes. And even when there is discretion, that discretion needs to be applied in a fair and proportionate way not just on the basis of who happens to have the most tear-stained eyes or the ability or luck to get a newspaper on side.
We need to have clear immigration rules, effective and swift enforcement of them at the earliest stage, rather than leaving people in prolonged - and unkind - limbo and an understanding by all that the fact of having people living in different countries does not meant that (a) you should be automatically entitled to go and live in those countries; or (b) that all your family should live in the same country. It may sound harsh but if people choose to marry people from other countries and move then they have to accept the consequences of their decisions. People seem to want to have both the advantages of a globalized world when it suits them as well as all the advantages of a parochial world where family members never stray far from home.
The survey about Corbyn is faulty because it compares voting for Labour with Corbyn against voting for Labour with AN Other rather than a specific person.
Two people considering voting for Labour with someone else could be considering a different someone else that is incompatible to each of them. Unless a specific alternative leader is named, the survey is meaningless.
Who says God doesn't have a sense of humour....Luvvies queue up to denounce White House chaos......and then screw up the biggest announcement of the lot!
Apart from Jimmy Kimmel going at Trump, I haven't seen any of the victors really using their speech to denounce him. All the news is about the mix-up.
Who says God doesn't have a sense of humour....Luvvies queue up to denounce White House chaos......and then screw up the biggest announcement of the lot!
To be fair, it was the accountants (PWC ?) who screwed up. So nothing new there.
Who says God doesn't have a sense of humour....Luvvies queue up to denounce White House chaos......and then screw up the biggest announcement of the lot!
Mr. Song, it was a legitimate story (on Nuttall) to report, but the BBC reported it three days in a row. The Hell-Snell comments (possibly due to being reported to the police) didn't get a mention on the main news programmes.
There was also no mention of the exaggerated claims of the Copeland Labour candidate.
Nuttally screwed up and got deserved censure, but that doesn't mean double standards aren't being applied.
Fair enough, if that was the case. I was referring to the accusation of 'monstering' and 'it was a legitimate story (on Nuttall)' so hardly 'monstering'.
Mr. Enjineeya, a year or two ago the BBC reported on the blue light of e-readers being proven scientifically to alter a chemical level (forget the precise name) which inhibited sleep.
Except it wasn't e-readers. It was tablets, upon which e-books were read, and the screens are fundamentally different.
Mr. Sandpit, cheers. Engineering isn't something I know much about. Very counter-intuitive acceleration stat, but I can see how it could be the case.
Sounds like the increased downforce will make a significant pace difference. Could have some implications also for G-forces/necks on particular circuits.
Some e-readers have similar screens to tablets, FWIW.
The same applies in TV too. There was a programme about the 447 flight from Brazil to Paris which crashed into the Atlantic which failed to ask the obvious question about why the pilots did not fly around a storm they had been warned about. The answer - as told to me by some pilots - is rather more worrying than the errors which the pilots made once the plane was in the storm.
AFAIK the weather wasn't unusual for that flight at that time of the year and it wasn't identified as a contributory factor in the Air Accident Report. The pitot tunes that measured airspeed weren't working, but the main factors were pilots ignoring instrument readings and making the rookie error of attempting to ascend out of a stall (you should accelerate on the level). Basically the pilots hadn't been trained properly. There were also seniority issues in the three man cockpit, which seems to be a not unusual issue. In this case the captain sitting on the left hand side saw the airplane take off and handed over to the junior second officer. Because he was sitting in the left seat he claimed seniority over the first officer who stayed in the right seat, even though the latter had more experience. The captain came back into the cockpit to ask, what the hell is going on, but it was too late.
All true. Once they were in the storm and airspeed detectors switched off - the autopilot went off - they should have carried on as before. They didn't and thought they needed to climb (they didn't), got into a stall, didn't realise and by the time they did it was too late to get out of the stall. But the issue - at least as relayed to me by these experienced pilots - was that Air France for cost-saving reasons (this route was not profitable) had sufficient fuel for the flight to Paris but not enough to permit the plane to fly round the storm. Had they done so the issue of the instrument readings being wrong/confusing would likely not have happened.
Reporting of almost anything technical is terrible. I work in IT and have a keen interest in aviation, almost every mainstream press report on either is inaccurate at best, misleading at worst.
It used to be that a science correspondent was a scientist who learned journalism, now it's more likely he's a journalist who learned science. Not as easy to do it the second way round, especially when sub-editors and researchers have disappeared as quickly as they have.
A true classic of the genre was when the Independent reported that WhatsApp were increasing their group chat size limit to 256 people. Their technology and science reporter wrote that it was "not clear why WhatsApp settled on the oddly specific number."
256
It's two to the power of eight.
Computers run on binary systems and it is most efficient on storage and processing to design accordingly.
If it had been Paul Nuttalls wife being deported during the Stoke campaign, the partisan traffic wardens would be saying "they knew the rules! Clause 3 paragraph iv clearly states etc etc"
A hypothetical too far, I think. But you may get to run a similar argument in real life, since presumably Nuttall's failure to be elected is no bar to the filth continuing to investigate the residence issue.
As a former potential UKIP candidate, do you think the monstering of Nuttall by the press throughout the campaign will put potential future candidates off standing?
Definitely. What normal person hasn't done things in the past that they don't want splashed all over the papers?! And can you imagine the Enoch Powell quotes from here?! A ukip fellow told me that conservative HQ had students raking through every ukip candidates social media history and they go after your family too.. who needs that?
If anyone says things in print, on radio, TV or on social media they should expect it to be seen. If they regret what they have said and also put that out in social media that should also be seen. In what way was Nuttall 'monstered' rather than reported?
No one has any proof, and I doubt it is possible to prove, that Nuttall wasn't at Hillsborough on the day of the disaster. As a Liverpool season ticket holder, I doubt he would tell such an outrageous lie and be able to attend games. The left made it up in order to smear him and stop ukip winning the seat.
I agree with you re social media, & to be honest I don't think there is anything I have said that I couldn't back up, but I don't think I could be bothered to have to defend myself constantly for two months over molehills that are being made into mountains
Also, I have two parents who are pensioners with high blood pressure, one of whom is a nervous wreck at the best of times & they wouldn't need the hassle and stress either. I mentioned on here years ago how my dad was forced out of his job by PC nutcases, that can of worms would have been reopened too no doubt
Nuttall may well have been at Hillsborough it was the address in the constituency that was the big mistake.
Or perhaps the family could have got advice on the rules from some good immigration lawyers, of which there are plenty.
I'm sceptical of cases trailed by newspapers - not because I don't accept that bureaucrats can't make silly decisions or decisions which are not in compliance with the law / rules - but because when it comes to newspaper reporting of cases where I know the full facts, the newspaper reports are invariably wrong or incomplete or sometimes both. Newspapers write stories; they rarely write the full story and they very often don't understand those facts and their import that they do write.
Again I don't say the family haven't made mistakes, perhaps many. However notwithstanding the "crusading" of many newspapers on the case few seem to doubt that they are a genuine family in difficult circumstances that the Home Office seem determined to undermine and breakup because the "rules" says so.
"Computer Says No"
That may well be the case. I don't know the facts.
But you can't apply the law on the basis of sympathy votes. And even when there is discretion, that discretion needs to be applied in a fair and proportionate way not just on the basis of who happens to have the most tear-stained eyes or the ability or luck to get a newspaper on side.
We need to have clear immigration rules, effective and swift enforcement of them at the earliest stage, rather than leaving people in prolonged - and unkind - limbo and an understanding by all that the fact of having people living in different countries does not meant that (a) you should be automatically entitled to go and live in those countries; or (b) that all your family should live in the same country. It may sound harsh but if people choose to marry people from other countries and move then they have to accept the consequences of their decisions. People seem to want to have both the advantages of a globalized world when it suits them as well as all the advantages of a parochial world where family members never stray far from home.
Does not the number of cases where people, long resident in this country, have left UK temporarily to, for example, care for elderly parents, suggest that some reasonably minor amendment to the rules is required?
The meme of betrayal is quite strong on the Left. I have written a thread on just this topic which OGH may or may not use.
For a fictional version see, for instance, A Very British Coup by Chris Mullin or the TV series G.B.H.
Worth noting in that context that Chris Mullin had by last Autumn come around to the following view on Corbyn: "One way or another Jeremy needs to be replaced by someone capable of offering strong leadership in both the party and the country. Labour needs to get its act together and fast. Failure to do so risks not merely defeat, but annihilation."
I have very little sympathy for the PLP on this. Back in 2015 they had one job to do: to nominate those candidates whom they thought capable of being leader and PM. Out of sentimentality and/or stupidity they nominated someone whom they didn't think was so capable. A bit much of them now to complain that a useless candidate has turned out to be a useless leader.
They have reaped what they sowed.
(And they've been pretty bloody useless since then, as well.)
Harriet Harman should carry the blame for the 2015 cock - up.
Or perhaps the family could have got advice on the rules from some good immigration lawyers, of which there are plenty.
I'm sceptical of cases trailed by newspapers - not because I don't accept that bureaucrats can't make silly decisions or decisions which are not in compliance with the law / rules - but because when it comes to newspaper reporting of cases where I know the full facts, the newspaper reports are invariably wrong or incomplete or sometimes both. Newspapers write stories; they rarely write the full story and they very often don't understand those facts and their import that they do write.
Again I don't say the family haven't made mistakes, perhaps many. However notwithstanding the "crusading" of many newspapers on the case few seem to doubt that they are a genuine family in difficult circumstances that the Home Office seem determined to undermine and breakup because the "rules" says so.
"Computer Says No"
That may well be the case. I don't know the facts.
But you can't apply the law on the basis of sympathy votes. And even when there is discretion, that discretion needs to be applied in a fair and proportionate way not just on the basis of who happens to have the most tear-stained eyes or the ability or luck to get a newspaper on side.
We need to have clear immigration rules, effective and swift enforcement of them at the earliest stage, rather than leaving people in prolonged - and unkind - limbo and an understanding by all that the fact of having people living in different countries does not meant that (a) you should be automatically entitled to go and live in those countries; or (b) that all your family should live in the same country. It may sound harsh but if people choose to marry people from other countries and move then they have to accept the consequences of their decisions. People seem to want to have both the advantages of a globalized world when it suits them as well as all the advantages of a parochial world where family members never stray far from home.
Does not the number of cases where people, long resident in this country, have left UK temporarily to, for example, care for elderly parents, suggest that some reasonably minor amendment to the rules is required?
That may well be the case. I don't know the facts.
But you can't apply the law on the basis of sympathy votes. And even when there is discretion, that discretion needs to be applied in a fair and proportionate way not just on the basis of who happens to have the most tear-stained eyes or the ability or luck to get a newspaper on side.
We need to have clear immigration rules, effective and swift enforcement of them at the earliest stage, rather than leaving people in prolonged - and unkind - limbo and an understanding by all that the fact of having people living in different countries does not meant that (a) you should be automatically entitled to go and live in those countries; or (b) that all your family should live in the same country. It may sound harsh but if people choose to marry people from other countries and move then they have to accept the consequences of their decisions. People seem to want to have both the advantages of a globalized world when it suits them as well as all the advantages of a parochial world where family members never stray far from home.
What we have at present is far from clear, effective and swift. It is dysfunctional, very arbitrary and to a large extent driven by unacknowledged quotas, which mean that a proportion of people can get away with playing the system while others who are less well connected will be excluded by default. So let's say we sort that out, would it deal with the principles you set out? In any case, does YOUR objection to sharing a country with someone you don't know trump MY right to sharing a life with the person I love? (I am personalising simply as an example)
The same applies in TV too. There was a programme about the 447 flight from Brazil to Paris which crashed into the Atlantic which failed to ask the obvious question about why the pilots did not fly around a storm they had been warned about. The answer - as told to me by some pilots - is rather more worrying than the errors which the pilots made once the plane was in the storm.
AFAIK the weather wasn't unusual for that flight at that time of the year and it wasn't identified as a contributory factor in the Air Accident Report. The pitot tunes that measured airspeed weren't working, but the main factors were pilots ignoring instrument readings and making the rookie error of attempting to ascend out of a stall (you should accelerate on the level). Basically the pilots hadn't been trained properly. There were also seniority issues in the three man cockpit, which seems to be a not unusual issue. In this case the captain sitting on the left hand side saw the airplane take off and handed over to the junior second officer. Because he was sitting in the left seat he claimed seniority over the first officer who stayed in the right seat, even though the latter had more experience. The captain came back into the cockpit to ask, what the hell is going on, but it was too late.
All true. Once they were in the storm and airspeed detectors switched off - the autopilot went off - they should have carried on as before. They didn't and thought they needed to climb (they didn't), got into a stall, didn't realise and by the time they did it was too late to get out of the stall. But the issue - at least as relayed to me by these experienced pilots - was that Air France for cost-saving reasons (this route was not profitable) had sufficient fuel for the flight to Paris but not enough to permit the plane to fly round the storm. Had they done so the issue of the instrument readings being wrong/confusing would likely not have happened.
That is a Titanic level of stupidity, pun intended.
Mr. 124, PLP collectively is to blame. Idiots like Sadiq Khan and Margaret Beckett[sp] who supported someone they didn't actually want as leader utterly failed to understand their job was to act as gatekeepers.
The meme of betrayal is quite strong on the Left. I have written a thread on just this topic which OGH may or may not use.
For a fictional version see, for instance, A Very British Coup by Chris Mullin or the TV series G.B.H.
Worth noting in that context that Chris Mullin had by last Autumn come around to the following view on Corbyn: "One way or another Jeremy needs to be replaced by someone capable of offering strong leadership in both the party and the country. Labour needs to get its act together and fast. Failure to do so risks not merely defeat, but annihilation."
I have very little sympathy for the PLP on this. Back in 2015 they had one job to do: to nominate those candidates whom they thought capable of being leader and PM. Out of sentimentality and/or stupidity they nominated someone whom they didn't think was so capable. A bit much of them now to complain that a useless candidate has turned out to be a useless leader.
They have reaped what they sowed.
(And they've been pretty bloody useless since then, as well.)
Harriet Harman should carry the blame for the 2015 cock - up.
No, she quickly understood why Labour lost in 2015 and was doing what she could to keep the party electable. The fault is not just with moderate MPs who elected Corbyn, but also the moderate wing generally for not putting forward a decent candidate, and with Ed Miliband for not seeing the glaring issue with the £3 system.
The Academy screw up saved us from 6 hours of thespian moaning and gave the Donald a clean break
He'd a black tie meeting with 46 Governors instead.
maybe, but today he's not the media villain, Meryl Streep didnt get an Oscar and the luvvies agenda is all about themselves while the shrieks of Adolf2 drift silently off over the Hollywood Hills
I suspect he;ll be chortling all the way to his next Executive Order
That may well be the case. I don't know the facts.
But you can't apply the law on the basis of sympathy votes. And even when there is discretion, that discretion needs to be applied in a fair and proportionate way not just on the basis of who happens to have the most tear-stained eyes or the ability or luck to get a newspaper on side.
We need to have clear immigration rules, effective and swift enforcement of them at the earliest stage, rather than leaving people in prolonged - and unkind - limbo and an understanding by all that the fact of having people living in different countries does not meant that (a) you should be automatically entitled to go and live in those countries; or (b) that all your family should live in the same country. It may sound harsh but if people choose to marry people from other countries and move then they have to accept the consequences of their decisions. People seem to want to have both the advantages of a globalized world when it suits them as well as all the advantages of a parochial world where family members never stray far from home.
We neither us know the full facts. However what we do know in the public domain is that the marriage of 27 years is genuine and the British family is suffering.
Frankly that's enough for me.
The PM should get the Home Office (she has some knowledge there apparently) to extract the collective digits from the government arse and do the right thing and if she can't recognise the essential decency of the matter then it's a pretty rum do.
Comments
Of course betrayal is a universal theme. But in any case I didn't say that it is only the Left which indulges in betrayal themes. I was writing about the Left - or one particular bit of it - and was interested in what this particular issue might tell us.
And that McDonnell article which I didn't know about until about an hour ago is a very good example of what I had in mind.
Threads - and even posts - would be immensely tiresome if we had to append at the end the caveat that of course this particular example of human behavior occurs universally. Maybe we could take that as read. Whataboutery is rarely illuminating.
I hope I don't sound snippy: your posts and threads are some of the more interesting ones on here.
The more time that goes by since the vote the more sure I am it was the right decision.
I'm sceptical of cases trailed by newspapers - not because I don't accept that bureaucrats can't make silly decisions or decisions which are not in compliance with the law / rules - but because when it comes to newspaper reporting of cases where I know the full facts, the newspaper reports are invariably wrong or incomplete or sometimes both. Newspapers write stories; they rarely write the full story and they very often don't understand those facts and their import that they do write.
"The National saw an annual fall in print sales of more than 30% to 8,500 average daily circulation in July to December.
Its digital subscriptions fell even more steeply, to below 2,000.
Only one other UK "regional" paper - in Wigan - reported a bigger fall in sales.
The National was set up soon after the 2014 referendum by The Herald and Evening Times group in Glasgow, to appeal to pro-independence readers. "
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-39076470
Lol.
https://twitter.com/cjjosh/status/836105976755306497
I imagine if that's one of his own Chinese made suits, some major alterations had to be made before it was fit for purpose.
Jeremy Corbyn’s new spin doctor is a lobbyist whose firm works for the Cumbria Success Regime, the controversial NHS programme which Labour said would kill babies in Copeland. Steve Howell, Jezza’s new Deputy Director of Strategy and Communications, is founder and director at PR company Freshwater. Their latest company accounts lists the Cumbria Success Regime among their top ten clients:
https://order-order.com/2017/02/27/corbyns-new-spinner-worked-copeland-baby-killers/
Although I've been wrong about everything recently so.......
https://twitter.com/wmpsentinel/status/835966037703155712
POLITICS
‘A Soft Coup Is Underway’ Against Jeremy Corbyn, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell Decares
He says it’s an ‘alliance’ of Murdoch media empire and Labour plotters
Could be fake news !!
"One way or another Jeremy needs to be replaced by someone capable of offering strong leadership in both the party and the country. Labour needs to get its act together and fast. Failure to do so risks not merely defeat, but annihilation."
If core Labour supporters realise they are in a competitive situation and the only way out of their mess is the hard way of winning over supporters of their opponents, the rest will fall into place. They will choose the leader who can do that. They are a long way from working this out - and that's not just the Corbynista faction.
https://twitter.com/Delo_Taylor/status/835956975288664064
Rates are still positive here, +0.25%. A zero rate I could understand but -0.75% o_O ?!
(1) The law is an ass.
(2) Hard cases make bad law.
Always going to be a tough call between discretion (whether "compassionate" or merely "sensible") and consistency. And at its core consistency has a value, and a justice, in its own right, be its edges oft ugly.
If I were The Big Boss, I'd let her stay in Britain, partly because of her previous ties (albeit she was the one who severed them) but mostly because letting her stay may be less of a drain on the exchequer than forcing her to leave, bearing in mind the care services she is providing for free.
That Sri Lankan Tamil lass in Wales, failed asylum seeker with just a couple of weeks of uni left before she graduates in a STEM shortage subject? I'd let her stay too. Just to finish off the degree. The British taxpayer has spent a stupid amount on her education if we include her time at secondary school in Britain - and bearing in mind how unlikely we are to get her student loan paid back to us, we are likely talking in the region of £50k all told. Utter waste of money if we don't let her finish the thing off. If she then has to leave the country this summer, but gets the chance to apply for skills-shortage jobs here that could earn her a visa, that sounds fair enough to me.
But then I'm a soppy sod. I'd probably say "stay" too often. What happens when someone's son is half-way through the degree - too near the end to kick them out? Or just started the first term, can't we let them do another 3 years here? And so it goes on.
Random F1 fact: An F1 car (2016 model) accelerates from 60-120mph faster than it gets from 0-60.
This is because the formula is based on gilt yields, or the interest rate on government bonds.
By the time inflation is taken into account, real returns on such bonds have become negative.
Mind you, its what some want with Immigration law too......
It used to be that a science correspondent was a scientist who learned journalism, now it's more likely he's a journalist who learned science. Not as easy to do it the second way round, especially when sub-editors and researchers have disappeared as quickly as they have.
They have reaped what they sowed.
(And they've been pretty bloody useless since then, as well.)
I would be disappointed, but could understand somewhat, if the point was to keep the article to a manageable length (a rather low view of readers' ability to take in information, and they could also post and link a separate "timeline" article for the finer facts if - as here - they were still relevant).
I would very upset - particularly with the BBC, though I know that newspapers do this all the bleeding time and Buzzfeed is little more than an internet tabloid - if the key facts are omitted in order to make the story "better". More sympathizable. More anger-inducing. More shareable on social media. Less, "well actually, considering all the facts, this might have been a reasonable decision".
The fact the BBC omits some of the very most important facts, and they wouldn't have taken a lot of space, makes me lean much more towards the third option than the second. I really hope it's the first, but my faith isn't all that high in it...
So why change now ?
As for the details, I believe they were also in the Sunday Times, which I think from the BBC point of view has to be a reliable source.
As a former potential UKIP candidate, do you think the monstering of Nuttall by the press throughout the campaign will put potential future candidates off standing?
South London vandals have defaced Crystal Palace's team bus after believing it belonged to their Premier League relegation rivals, Middlesbrough.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/02/27/crystal-palace-fans-accidentally-vandalise-team-bus/
Mr. Enjineeya, a year or two ago the BBC reported on the blue light of e-readers being proven scientifically to alter a chemical level (forget the precise name) which inhibited sleep.
Except it wasn't e-readers. It was tablets, upon which e-books were read, and the screens are fundamentally different.
Mr. Sandpit, cheers. Engineering isn't something I know much about. Very counter-intuitive acceleration stat, but I can see how it could be the case.
Sounds like the increased downforce will make a significant pace difference. Could have some implications also for G-forces/necks on particular circuits.
http://downloads2.dodsmonitoring.com/downloads/2017/Briefings/Budget/SpringBudgetSpec_2017.pdf
To save fuel I'm guessing?
Not helped by many "Natural" beekeepers (some of whom are great) who quote junk science. Even the scientific community when doing research into the impact of pesticides on bees gets it wrong...
"Computer Says No"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vobQUGscEZg
As I see it if real interest rates turn net positive again then these people will have been overcompensated, in the same way that those who had compensation when real interest rates were positive are now losing out.
In what way was Nuttall 'monstered' rather than reported?
There was also no mention of the exaggerated claims of the Copeland Labour candidate.
Nuttally screwed up and got deserved censure, but that doesn't mean double standards aren't being applied.
I really haven't the foggiest notion but then again the same would probably be true of the Home Office.
I'm going to the funeral of John Kershaw next week, who was the Conservative candidate here in 1983 and 1987.
It was a dismal result and he only has himself to blame.
I agree with you re social media, & to be honest I don't think there is anything I have said that I couldn't back up, but I don't think I could be bothered to have to defend myself constantly for two months over molehills that are being made into mountains
Also, I have two parents who are pensioners with high blood pressure, one of whom is a nervous wreck at the best of times & they wouldn't need the hassle and stress either. I mentioned on here years ago how my dad was forced out of his job by PC nutcases, that can of worms would have been reopened too no doubt
piss up in a brewerygiving out of little golden men.You are right that some people may end up being over-compensated and some under-compensated, but that's equally true in annuities or any other long-term financial settlement. In any case, I suspect that uncertainty over future medical and care requirements hugely outweighs financial uncertainty.
You can pick up an entire second hand coach for half that : http://hillscoachsales.com/coach-sales/wp_car_dealer/01-volvo-b10m-plaxton-premiere-55-sts/
But you can't apply the law on the basis of sympathy votes. And even when there is discretion, that discretion needs to be applied in a fair and proportionate way not just on the basis of who happens to have the most tear-stained eyes or the ability or luck to get a newspaper on side.
We need to have clear immigration rules, effective and swift enforcement of them at the earliest stage, rather than leaving people in prolonged - and unkind - limbo and an understanding by all that the fact of having people living in different countries does not meant that (a) you should be automatically entitled to go and live in those countries; or (b) that all your family should live in the same country. It may sound harsh but if people choose to marry people from other countries and move then they have to accept the consequences of their decisions. People seem to want to have both the advantages of a globalized world when it suits them as well as all the advantages of a parochial world where family members never stray far from home.
Two people considering voting for Labour with someone else could be considering a different someone else that is incompatible to each of them. Unless a specific alternative leader is named, the survey is meaningless.
So nothing new there.
PWC, you're fired.
I was referring to the accusation of 'monstering' and 'it was a legitimate story (on Nuttall)' so hardly 'monstering'.
All true. Once they were in the storm and airspeed detectors switched off - the autopilot went off - they should have carried on as before. They didn't and thought they needed to climb (they didn't), got into a stall, didn't realise and by the time they did it was too late to get out of the stall. But the issue - at least as relayed to me by these experienced pilots - was that Air France for cost-saving reasons (this route was not profitable) had sufficient fuel for the flight to Paris but not enough to permit the plane to fly round the storm. Had they done so the issue of the instrument readings being wrong/confusing would likely not have happened.
It's two to the power of eight.
Computers run on binary systems and it is most efficient on storage and processing to design accordingly.
Really big fonts for the least important thing, and a small font for the most important thing
I suspect he;ll be chortling all the way to his next Executive Order
Frankly that's enough for me.
The PM should get the Home Office (she has some knowledge there apparently) to extract the collective digits from the government arse and do the right thing and if she can't recognise the essential decency of the matter then it's a pretty rum do.