Really enjoyed it - the first time I've been properly out in Derbyshire in 12 months. Only a couple of miles of scrambling, but it knocked me out for most of Sunday given recent illnesses.
Bilberry and apple jam coming soon.
I'm still watching bilberry plants. But may wait a bit.
12 nm is the limit, so there would be plenty of La Manche free for boating in - where English and French waters meet would be only in the Straits of Dover (and [edit] possibly the waters E and S of the CIs, though you will know better than me).
Edit: could you be thinking of the EEZ?
They are crossing at the narrowest point (unsurprisingly) which is the Strait of Dover/Pas de Calais which is in its entirety within either British or French territorial waters. Of course the Navy could patrol the international waters outside the SoD/PdC, where they're not crossing, if that would make him feel better.....
The "Australian" approach "works" because there's a large area of international water between Indonesia and Australia - so its fairly straightforward to escort boats back to Indonesian waters - or take the recalcitrant to Christmas Island. In the SoD/PdC immediately they leave French territorial waters they become British responsibility.
Re TalkTalk, thanks for the correction, so they're still only offering G.Fast. I was lead to believe they'd already launched FTTP.
Hope in time they launch it then.
I'll probably stick with BT given what I've heard about Talktalk's customer service. But the price pressure could be useful.
There are far too many buzzwords which muddy the waters around broadband marketing. What is really needed to be known is the speed and delivery method - e.g. FTTC 50 MBPS or FTTP 150 MBPS rather than ultra-mega-wonder- "even faster" fibre which doesn't help anyone.
Yes, I'm with Mike on this one. Calling VP picks is entirely Kremlinology, with all the risks that brings.
Rice does sound like a sensible pick but does Biden prioritise the same things to the same extent as those who are second-guessing him? The downside to her is that she'd almost certainly make a better VP - or Sec/State? - than running-mate.
Yes, she ticks identity boxes but then so do others. She doesn't bring with her any swing-state-specific support which might prove crucial if the race tightens.
FWIW, I think she's rightly favourite but were I betting on this (and I'm not), I wouldn't want to go deep on anyone.
Yes, I'm with Mike on this one. Calling VP picks is entirely Kremlinology, with all the risks that brings.
Rice does sound like a sensible pick but does Biden prioritise the same things to the same extent as those who are second-guessing him? The downside to her is that she'd almost certainly make a better VP - or Sec/State? - than running-mate.
Yes, she ticks identity boxes but then so do others. She doesn't bring with her any swing-state-specific support which might prove crucial if the race tightens.
FWIW, I think she's rightly favourite but were I betting on this (and I'm not), I wouldn't want to go deep on anyone.
Were I making the selection the bit I would be focused on is who would annoy Trump the most resulting him saying something beyond the pale.
Tammy Duckworth is a brilliant example, disabled in battle while Trump pulled tricks to avoid serving.
12 nm is the limit, so there would be plenty of La Manche free for boating in - where English and French waters meet would be only in the Straits of Dover (and [edit] possibly the waters E and S of the CIs, though you will know better than me).
Edit: could you be thinking of the EEZ?
They are crossing at the narrowest point (unsurprisingly) which is the Strait of Dover/Pas de Calais which is in its entirety within either British or French territorial waters. Of course the Navy could patrol the international waters outside the SoD/PdC, where they're not crossing, if that would make him feel better.....
The "Australian" approach "works" because there's a large area of international water between Indonesia and Australia - so its fairly straightforward to escort boats back to Indonesian waters - or take the recalcitrant to Christmas Island. In the SoD/PdC immediately they leave French territorial waters they become British responsibility.
What is it with senior ministers not understanding the significance of the Dover-Calais crossing?
12 nm is the limit, so there would be plenty of La Manche free for boating in - where English and French waters meet would be only in the Straits of Dover (and [edit] possibly the waters E and S of the CIs, though you will know better than me).
Edit: could you be thinking of the EEZ?
They are crossing at the narrowest point (unsurprisingly) which is the Strait of Dover/Pas de Calais which is in its entirety within either British or French territorial waters. Of course the Navy could patrol the international waters outside the SoD/PdC, where they're not crossing, if that would make him feel better.....
The "Australian" approach "works" because there's a large area of international water between Indonesia and Australia - so its fairly straightforward to escort boats back to Indonesian waters - or take the recalcitrant to Christmas Island. In the SoD/PdC immediately they leave French territorial waters they become British responsibility.
What is it with senior ministers not understanding the significance of the Dover-Calais crossing?
Yes, I'm with Mike on this one. Calling VP picks is entirely Kremlinology, with all the risks that brings.
Rice does sound like a sensible pick but does Biden prioritise the same things to the same extent as those who are second-guessing him? The downside to her is that she'd almost certainly make a better VP - or Sec/State? - than running-mate.
Yes, she ticks identity boxes but then so do others. She doesn't bring with her any swing-state-specific support which might prove crucial if the race tightens.
FWIW, I think she's rightly favourite but were I betting on this (and I'm not), I wouldn't want to go deep on anyone.
Were I making the selection the bit I would be focused on is who would annoy Trump the most resulting him saying something beyond the pale.
Tammy Duckworth is a brilliant example, disabled in battle while Trump pulled tricks to avoid serving.
Trump can be triggered into saying something completely ridiculous without going to the expense of potentially picking the wrong VP in order to do so. Heck, it only took one (possibly false) tweet to get him to say he should be on Mt Rushmore.
But if there's one thing the last four years should have taught us, it's that there really isn't much that Trump could say that's 'beyond the pale'.
@Big_G_NorthWales The public are wrong, I am not interested what they think in this case.
France will not pay to secure our borders. Do you think we should pay to secure theirs? Why not?
Perhaps they should pay to secure their own borders. How else did they manage to trek all the way from the south of France to the north without being stopped?
Take back control of our borders, other countries should pay! Honestly what is this crap lol
Yougov reports public opinion supports France paying at 38% or France and UK at 45% and UK alone just 7%
Is that public opinion or UK public opinion? Not sure why French public opinion would be any less relevant on this matter and imagine it is a mirror image of our own.
I think the election is close enough for Biden to discount "Who would make a good VP" in favour of "Who would help me win?" That seems to make Rice less likely - might be a great campaigner, but primarily she impresses as a solid professional diplomat, a natural choice for Sec of State. Biden probably already has 90% of the folk who yearn for a serious foreign policy.
Harris is a strong favourite for a reason and I can't believe that a long-time professional like Biden is going to hold a grudge because she dissed him in a debate. He needs a hard-hitting puncher. Maybe Whitmer has that too? Her big edge is that she's a popular woman in a marginal state and can speak with authority on the way Trump's Covid policy has messed things up for the states/
@Big_G_NorthWales The public are wrong, I am not interested what they think in this case.
France will not pay to secure our borders. Do you think we should pay to secure theirs? Why not?
France and UK already cooperate over this and these are peoples lives we are talking about, plus combating people trafficking which according to some reports is centred in Brussels
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
12 nm is the limit, so there would be plenty of La Manche free for boating in - where English and French waters meet would be only in the Straits of Dover (and [edit] possibly the waters E and S of the CIs, though you will know better than me).
Edit: could you be thinking of the EEZ?
They are crossing at the narrowest point (unsurprisingly) which is the Strait of Dover/Pas de Calais which is in its entirety within either British or French territorial waters. Of course the Navy could patrol the international waters outside the SoD/PdC, where they're not crossing, if that would make him feel better.....
The "Australian" approach "works" because there's a large area of international water between Indonesia and Australia - so its fairly straightforward to escort boats back to Indonesian waters - or take the recalcitrant to Christmas Island. In the SoD/PdC immediately they leave French territorial waters they become British responsibility.
I think it's pretty clear the people smuggler's are exploiting a loophole there. But in both instances an agreement with France is necessary.
I'd have thought the solution would be to agree to station British Border Force vessels in French waters, face-down any "jump into the sea" threats from intercepted boats, and escort every single one back to French ports.
The quid pro quo would be for the UK to take an agreed % of the legitimate ones direct from France and help France likewise with its borders in the Med.
@Big_G_NorthWales The public are wrong, I am not interested what they think in this case.
France will not pay to secure our borders. Do you think we should pay to secure theirs? Why not?
Perhaps they should pay to secure their own borders. How else did they manage to trek all the way from the south of France to the north without being stopped?
Perhaps in the same way that people can move around the UK without having cop shop stop them. As for "secure borders" are we in the UK in a position to lecture other countries about their border processes? Our border is the literal open door.
12 nm is the limit, so there would be plenty of La Manche free for boating in - where English and French waters meet would be only in the Straits of Dover (and [edit] possibly the waters E and S of the CIs, though you will know better than me).
Edit: could you be thinking of the EEZ?
They are crossing at the narrowest point (unsurprisingly) which is the Strait of Dover/Pas de Calais which is in its entirety within either British or French territorial waters. Of course the Navy could patrol the international waters outside the SoD/PdC, where they're not crossing, if that would make him feel better.....
The "Australian" approach "works" because there's a large area of international water between Indonesia and Australia - so its fairly straightforward to escort boats back to Indonesian waters - or take the recalcitrant to Christmas Island. In the SoD/PdC immediately they leave French territorial waters they become British responsibility.
What is it with senior ministers not understanding the significance of the Dover-Calais crossing?
@Big_G_NorthWales The public are wrong, I am not interested what they think in this case.
France will not pay to secure our borders. Do you think we should pay to secure theirs? Why not?
France and UK already cooperate over this and these are peoples lives we are talking about, plus combating people trafficking which according to some reports is centred in Brussels
Answer the question please.
Why should France pay to secure our borders? Why should we not pay to secure theirs?
Off the topic of Biden but on the topic of betting -
I've just been looking at the SPIN market on who will be Boris "Boris" Johnson's Press Rep, the person to front Downing St pressers as we take yet another unwelcome step towards a US style way of doing politics.
Strikingly there are several names fancied who earned their spurs at that hotbed of leftism the BBC - including the fav Allegra Stratton at 5/1. Guess these hypocritical lefties will do anything to kiss the seat of power. Even be a mouthpiece for such a gruesome twosome as Johnson and Cummings.
I also noticed something interesting down in the long shots, aka mug punt territory. Jeremy Corbyn is 66/1. And you can have 100/1 Graham Norton.
That's crazy imo - both the absolutes (which should both be much longer) and the relativities. Norton should surely be a touch shorter than Corbyn. Corbyn would definitely turn it down if offered (which it won't be). Whereas Graham Norton might - just might - consider it in the vanishingly unlikely but not impossible event that Johnson and Cummings wish to go that route.
Anyway, info only and no need whatsoever to DYOR since I'm neither betting on this market nor tipping anything.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
The total compares with 165,615 asylum applications in Germany, 151,070 in France, 117,800 in Spain and 77,275 in Greece in the same period, according to Eurostat."
Wait till we properly leave in December. The buyer's remorse will only grow as the shelves empty.
If there's a full FTA (which I now think is 65% likely, the main stumbling blocks are state aid and fish, and I doubt either the UK or EU is going to die in the hills for those) that won't happen.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
@Big_G_NorthWales The public are wrong, I am not interested what they think in this case.
France will not pay to secure our borders. Do you think we should pay to secure theirs? Why not?
France and UK already cooperate over this and these are peoples lives we are talking about, plus combating people trafficking which according to some reports is centred in Brussels
Answer the question please.
Why should France pay to secure our borders? Why should we not pay to secure theirs?
I have answered your question.
They already do pay and contribute to joint border security but as important they are fighting people trafficking together and both countries have a duty to protect lives
Yes, I'm with Mike on this one. Calling VP picks is entirely Kremlinology, with all the risks that brings.
Rice does sound like a sensible pick but does Biden prioritise the same things to the same extent as those who are second-guessing him? The downside to her is that she'd almost certainly make a better VP - or Sec/State? - than running-mate.
Yes, she ticks identity boxes but then so do others. She doesn't bring with her any swing-state-specific support which might prove crucial if the race tightens.
FWIW, I think she's rightly favourite but were I betting on this (and I'm not), I wouldn't want to go deep on anyone.
Were I making the selection the bit I would be focused on is who would annoy Trump the most resulting him saying something beyond the pale.
Tammy Duckworth is a brilliant example, disabled in battle while Trump pulled tricks to avoid serving.
Trump can be triggered into saying something completely ridiculous without going to the expense of potentially picking the wrong VP in order to do so. Heck, it only took one (possibly false) tweet to get him to say he should be on Mt Rushmore.
But if there's one thing the last four years should have taught us, it's that there really isn't much that Trump could say that's 'beyond the pale'.
The total compares with 165,615 asylum applications in Germany, 151,070 in France, 117,800 in Spain and 77,275 in Greece in the same period, according to Eurostat."
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
The total compares with 165,615 asylum applications in Germany, 151,070 in France, 117,800 in Spain and 77,275 in Greece in the same period, according to Eurostat."
As I said on the previous thread those countries listed are either in the front line or were stupid enough to send out an open invitation to anyone who wanted to risk their lives and go to Germany. Only a very small number of asylum seekers arrive directly into the UK from outside the EU and therefore, unless you are claiming the EU countries are unsafe, the should have registered their asylum claim in the first country they arrived in.
If they choose to travel through several safe countries before they reach the UK then we should send them back to the last EU country they left before they arrived in the UK.
What we should be doing is going directly to the camps around the war zones and taking out the vulnerable for relocation and settlement in the UK. That was Cameron's plan but sadly the EU wasn't interested.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
"dump them back"
language a great tell as always.
All we are doing is returning France's problem back to France. Its up to them to deal with the problem.
Its simply not our fault that the French are not providing a welcoming environment for the people they are sheltering.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In the age of mini sats and NVGs it is a trivial problem for the French to arrest the vessels before they’ve even left shore, throw the book at the people traffickers and find out where the trail leads to. That they have consistently failed to do this for years should raise some very awkward questions indeed.
It is quite unbecoming of those that prefer to score cheap points about Brexit (as if that’s got anything to do with it) than ask why the French are so averse to a light being shone on this disgusting illegal activity.
I could make an educated guess to that question but I suspect it would be termed libellous if I was to write it down here.
Farage is pretty much already there. If people want simply sink the dinghys then why not just say so. Don't worry about the lives being sent to the bottom of the Channel its the fault of the French for taking so many more asylum seekers than the UK does
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
The Trump administration on Friday imposed economic sanctions on 11 current and former Chinese officials, including Hong Kong’s chief executive, Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, marking a drastic escalation in tensions with Beijing over its imposition of a national security law in the semi-autonomous city.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
They are trying to get to Global Britain?
Some people have a vision of Brexit turning the EU into a buffer state between us and the uncivilised masses.
Wait till we properly leave in December. The buyer's remorse will only grow as the shelves empty.
If there's a full FTA (which I now think is 65% likely, the main stumbling blocks are state aid and fish, and I doubt either the UK or EU is going to die in the hills for those) that won't happen.
I agree that close alignment is clear favourite. I would go higher than your 65% in fact. Close to nailed on for me. 90%.
I think the election is close enough for Biden to discount "Who would make a good VP" in favour of "Who would help me win?" That seems to make Rice less likely - might be a great campaigner, but primarily she impresses as a solid professional diplomat, a natural choice for Sec of State. Biden probably already has 90% of the folk who yearn for a serious foreign policy.
Harris is a strong favourite for a reason and I can't believe that a long-time professional like Biden is going to hold a grudge because she dissed him in a debate. He needs a hard-hitting puncher. Maybe Whitmer has that too? Her big edge is that she's a popular woman in a marginal state and can speak with authority on the way Trump's Covid policy has messed things up for the states/
Whitmer's big edge is that the VPs debate has Mike Pence on the GOP side, who is nominally in charge of the White House response to Covid-19. Whether she will get the VP slot solely for one nailed-on debate win, who knows?
Tbh I doubt any of those named will make much difference come November, and that might favour Susan Rice. I've not completely given up on Tammy Duckworth and even Karen Bass or Elizabeth Warren would not be a total surprise.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
They are trying to get to Global Britain?
You tell me. Its a pretty savage indictment of the French system, isn;t it? not exactly welcoming, are they?
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
12 nm is the limit, so there would be plenty of La Manche free for boating in - where English and French waters meet would be only in the Straits of Dover (and [edit] possibly the waters E and S of the CIs, though you will know better than me).
Edit: could you be thinking of the EEZ?
They are crossing at the narrowest point (unsurprisingly) which is the Strait of Dover/Pas de Calais which is in its entirety within either British or French territorial waters. Of course the Navy could patrol the international waters outside the SoD/PdC, where they're not crossing, if that would make him feel better.....
The "Australian" approach "works" because there's a large area of international water between Indonesia and Australia - so its fairly straightforward to escort boats back to Indonesian waters - or take the recalcitrant to Christmas Island. In the SoD/PdC immediately they leave French territorial waters they become British responsibility.
I think it's pretty clear the people smuggler's are exploiting a loophole there. But in both instances an agreement with France is necessary.
I'd have thought the solution would be to agree to station British Border Force vessels in French waters, face-down any "jump into the sea" threats from intercepted boats, and escort every single one back to French ports.
The quid pro quo would be for the UK to take an agreed % of the legitimate ones direct from France and help France likewise with its borders in the Med.
Yes - the key is to drive the Channel people smugglers out of business and into prison. And we need to "do our bit" in accommodating genuine refugees - at the moment we aren't pulling our weight.
In 2019, there were around 5 asylum applications for every 10,000 people resident in the UK. Across the EU28 there were 14 asylum applications for every 10,000 people. The UK was therefore below the average among EU countries for asylum applications per head of population, ranking 17th among EU28 countries on this measure.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
They are trying to get to Global Britain?
Some people have a vision of Brexit turning the EU into a buffer state between us and the uncivilised masses.
Nope some people think that we should be dealing with the migrant crisis in a completely different way. The EU, led by the moronic German government, is the problem here. They have both completely ignored their own rules and put thousands of people in danger with their actions.
We should take far more vulnerable migrants directly from the camps rather than encouraging them to risk their lives. The way to do that is to enact Cameron's plans - and expand them - whilst at the same time discouraging unauthorised attempts to reach the UK .
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
"dump them back"
language a great tell as always.
All we are doing is returning France's problem back to France. Its up to them to deal with the problem.
Its simply not our fault that the French are not providing a welcoming environment for the people they are sheltering.
No - per our resident libertarian liberal leaver Mr Tyndall we are "dumping them back".
Them being people.
As for your "point" - you are being tediously facetious.
Farage is pretty much already there. If people want simply sink the dinghys then why not just say so. Don't worry about the lives being sent to the bottom of the Channel its the fault of the French for taking so many more asylum seekers than the UK does
At the moment, a non-trivial percentage of the people trying to cross the Channel in RIBs are probably dying.
The Channel is full of large, fast moving ships, nasty currents etc. Not a place for a small boat to cut across the traffic in the middle of the night.
But as long as they are drowning out of earshot, we can feel all nice and liberal about letting them.....
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
They are trying to get to Global Britain?
You tell me. Its a pretty savage indictment of the French system, isn;t it? not exactly welcoming, are they?
No, it's a bigger indictment of our system that we get spurious asylum applications from economic migrants who then find it incredibly easy to disappear and work illegally for unscrupulous people. The pull factor is what puts people into the boats, if we actually deported failed applicants and put a very high bar to applying with automatic deportation for people not on the list of eligible countries then that pull factor drops away. The same is true for most of Europe, bit the UK and Germany are specifically seen as soft touch nations where working illegally is very easy.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
If they are in an illegal boat then how do we know they came from France.
Reverse the situation. What would happen if, say, @TSE decided to escape the UK for France. He bought/stole a boat or made one and set sail from Southampton. He arrived in Calais, tired but happy, several hours later.
Is it our job to police his departure for...well in this case France...or their job to ensure he doesn't enter their country?
Macmillan apparently once wrote to an underling: "Can nothing be done to suppress or get rid of Chapman Pincher?"
Yes because the plight of Ugandan Asians is Idi Amin's Uganda is exactly the same as that of asylum seekers in modern, democraticand relatively prosperous France and Germany....
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
"dump them back"
language a great tell as always.
Your reaction is a bigger tell.
Of what?
Your kneejerk reaction against anyone who questions your strange ideas about responsibility. I notice you are always ready to criticise but fail to come up with any solutions yourself. You would rather play politics with people's lives.
Can a country legally "dump" asylum seekers on the shore of another country? I don't think that is allowed, is it?
If we want to stop them coming here, then we can pay. No qualms about that.
But let's be honest this entire issue is about blaming somebody else for our problems. We've left the EU, we've taken back control. Our problem now, not France's.
Take back control of our borders, other countries should pay! Honestly what is this crap lol
Cooperation between nations, as it's an issue that affects both if they do not cooperate. The French have repeatedly asked us to pay for dealing with issues before the people are in the boats and landing on our shores. I don't think that is something to guffaw about, nor inherently unreaonable.
I don't know, I'm just not seeing this issue as being as hilarious as people are acting like it is.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
"dump them back"
language a great tell as always.
All we are doing is returning France's problem back to France. Its up to them to deal with the problem.
Its simply not our fault that the French are not providing a welcoming environment for the people they are sheltering.
No - per our resident libertarian liberal leaver Mr Tyndall we are "dumping them back".
Them being people.
As for your "point" - you are being tediously facetious.
The trouble is you are so blind and bigoted in your views that there is no point trying to use anything other than the most basic of language when discussing this.
It is very fortunate that there are absolutely no votes at all in France in giving the UK government a hard time - and no lost votes in the UK in working cooperatively with the French and bunging them some money to help us out.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In the age of mini sats and NVGs it is a trivial problem for the French to arrest the vessels before they’ve even left shore, throw the book at the people traffickers and find out where the trail leads to. That they have consistently failed to do this for years should raise some very awkward questions indeed.
It is quite unbecoming of those that prefer to score cheap points about Brexit (as if that’s got anything to do with it) than ask why the French are so averse to a light being shone on this disgusting illegal activity.
I could make an educated guess to that question but I suspect it would be termed libellous if I was to write it down here.
Same question for you:
What would happen if, say, @TSE decided to escape the UK for France. He bought/stole a boat or made one and set sail from Southampton. He arrived in Calais, tired but happy, several hours later.
Is it our job to police his departure for...well in this case France...or their job to ensure he doesn't enter their country?
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
That's got nothing to do with us. That's a matter for France.
Our borders, our problem.
In which case we simply dump them back in France again.
If they are in an illegal boat then how do we know they came from France.
Reverse the situation. What would happen if, say, @TSE decided to escape the UK for France. He bought/stole a boat or made one and set sail from Southampton. He arrived in Calais, tired but happy, several hours later.
Is it our job to police his departure for...well in this case France...or their job to ensure he doesn't enter their country?
It's our job to police his departure, but also fair enough for France to deport him to the UK on arrival. As I said, it's better to deport them to their nations of origin, even if it means needing to amend the HRA to enable that.
I have no issue co-operating with France - although I can totally see why they would be distrusting after what we've done re Brexit negotiations - but I can also totally see why when the UK says France should pay, the French say sod off.
Is it morally right? Maybe not. But that's their right to do so.
And a YouGov poll isn't going to change that.
This whole thing is just a cheap ploy to get a polling lead and to exploit a tiny issue and to district from the real problems. Classic Tory diversion tactics.
We have already discussed building prisons overseas. Why not put a large asylum processing centre in the same place? Transport the prisoners out, transport the legitimate asylum seekers back.
The French should pay some of the cost because they have failed to provide a decent environment for the asylum seekers they have allowed into their country. Their control of this flow of people for a supposedly civilised and modern democracy leaves a huge amount to be desired
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
They are trying to get to Global Britain?
You tell me. Its a pretty savage indictment of the French system, isn;t it? not exactly welcoming, are they?
Why is it so hard for you to understand people from faraway shores being so attracted to GREAT Britain - as compared to the likes of France and Germany - that they are willing to risk life and limb to get here?
Comments
Soddit. 3rd like the non runner in the hare and the tortoise.
Bilberry and apple jam coming soon.
I'm still watching bilberry plants. But may wait a bit.
Hope in time they launch it then.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46758600
The "Australian" approach "works" because there's a large area of international water between Indonesia and Australia - so its fairly straightforward to escort boats back to Indonesian waters - or take the recalcitrant to Christmas Island. In the SoD/PdC immediately they leave French territorial waters they become British responsibility.
There are far too many buzzwords which muddy the waters around broadband marketing. What is really needed to be known is the speed and delivery method - e.g. FTTC 50 MBPS or FTTP 150 MBPS rather than ultra-mega-wonder- "even faster" fibre which doesn't help anyone.
3-5 days, weekend shadow etc.
Rice does sound like a sensible pick but does Biden prioritise the same things to the same extent as those who are second-guessing him? The downside to her is that she'd almost certainly make a better VP - or Sec/State? - than running-mate.
Yes, she ticks identity boxes but then so do others. She doesn't bring with her any swing-state-specific support which might prove crucial if the race tightens.
FWIW, I think she's rightly favourite but were I betting on this (and I'm not), I wouldn't want to go deep on anyone.
3-5 days, weekend shadow etc.
3-5 days, weekend shadow etc.
It is a very very important pick tho'
It was mingin'.
I'm off to drink some bleach to get the taste out of my mouth.
As expected, the lawyer with the baseball bat is still on weekend break
Tammy Duckworth is a brilliant example, disabled in battle while Trump pulled tricks to avoid serving.
But if there's one thing the last four years should have taught us, it's that there really isn't much that Trump could say that's 'beyond the pale'.
The tortoise doped it.....
Because I want one....
I'm not going to be greedy, and guess. I haven't a clue.
So it's a bird in the hand for me.
France will not pay to secure our borders. Do you think we should pay to secure theirs? Why not?
https://www.annsummers.com/sex-essentials/sex-essentials-edibles/caramel-flavoured-body-paint-100g/104315.html
Harris is a strong favourite for a reason and I can't believe that a long-time professional like Biden is going to hold a grudge because she dissed him in a debate. He needs a hard-hitting puncher. Maybe Whitmer has that too? Her big edge is that she's a popular woman in a marginal state and can speak with authority on the way Trump's Covid policy has messed things up for the states/
Why else would thousands of people risk a potentially deadly voyage over a treacherous strip of water?
I'd have thought the solution would be to agree to station British Border Force vessels in French waters, face-down any "jump into the sea" threats from intercepted boats, and escort every single one back to French ports.
The quid pro quo would be for the UK to take an agreed % of the legitimate ones direct from France and help France likewise with its borders in the Med.
Why should France pay to secure our borders? Why should we not pay to secure theirs?
I've just been looking at the SPIN market on who will be Boris "Boris" Johnson's Press Rep, the person to front Downing St pressers as we take yet another unwelcome step towards a US style way of doing politics.
Strikingly there are several names fancied who earned their spurs at that hotbed of leftism the BBC - including the fav Allegra Stratton at 5/1. Guess these hypocritical lefties will do anything to kiss the seat of power. Even be a mouthpiece for such a gruesome twosome as Johnson and Cummings.
I also noticed something interesting down in the long shots, aka mug punt territory. Jeremy Corbyn is 66/1. And you can have 100/1 Graham Norton.
That's crazy imo - both the absolutes (which should both be much longer) and the relativities. Norton should surely be a touch shorter than Corbyn. Corbyn would definitely turn it down if offered (which it won't be). Whereas Graham Norton might - just might - consider it in the vanishingly unlikely but not impossible event that Johnson and Cummings wish to go that route.
Anyway, info only and no need whatsoever to DYOR since I'm neither betting on this market nor tipping anything.
Our borders, our problem.
"Home Office data shows that in 2019 there were about 36,000 asylum applications made in the UK. The vast majority arrived in the UK by other means than small boat crossings over the Channel.
The total compares with 165,615 asylum applications in Germany, 151,070 in France, 117,800 in Spain and 77,275 in Greece in the same period, according to Eurostat."
They already do pay and contribute to joint border security but as important they are fighting people trafficking together and both countries have a duty to protect lives
language a great tell as always.
https://twitter.com/SatbirLSingh/status/1292512683732938753
If they choose to travel through several safe countries before they reach the UK then we should send them back to the last EU country they left before they arrived in the UK.
What we should be doing is going directly to the camps around the war zones and taking out the vulnerable for relocation and settlement in the UK. That was Cameron's plan but sadly the EU wasn't interested.
Its simply not our fault that the French are not providing a welcoming environment for the people they are sheltering.
https://twitter.com/EveningStandard/status/1292859350382452739
It is quite unbecoming of those that prefer to score cheap points about Brexit (as if that’s got anything to do with it) than ask why the French are so averse to a light being shone on this disgusting illegal activity.
I could make an educated guess to that question but I suspect it would be termed libellous if I was to write it down here.
The Trump administration on Friday imposed economic sanctions on 11 current and former Chinese officials, including Hong Kong’s chief executive, Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, marking a drastic escalation in tensions with Beijing over its imposition of a national security law in the semi-autonomous city.
https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/3096547/us-sanction-carrie-lam-over-crackdown-hong-kong
Tbh I doubt any of those named will make much difference come November, and that might favour Susan Rice. I've not completely given up on Tammy Duckworth and even Karen Bass or Elizabeth Warren would not be a total surprise.
Macmillan apparently once wrote to an underling: "Can nothing be done to suppress or get rid of Chapman Pincher?"
In 2019, there were around 5 asylum applications for every 10,000 people resident in the UK. Across the EU28 there were 14 asylum applications for every 10,000 people. The UK was therefore below the average among EU countries for asylum applications per head of population, ranking 17th among EU28 countries on this measure.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1292860341924372481
We should take far more vulnerable migrants directly from the camps rather than encouraging them to risk their lives. The way to do that is to enact Cameron's plans - and expand them - whilst at the same time discouraging unauthorised attempts to reach the UK .
Them being people.
As for your "point" - you are being tediously facetious.
The Channel is full of large, fast moving ships, nasty currents etc. Not a place for a small boat to cut across the traffic in the middle of the night.
But as long as they are drowning out of earshot, we can feel all nice and liberal about letting them.....
Reverse the situation. What would happen if, say, @TSE decided to escape the UK for France. He bought/stole a boat or made one and set sail from Southampton. He arrived in Calais, tired but happy, several hours later.
Is it our job to police his departure for...well in this case France...or their job to ensure he doesn't enter their country?
Or maybe it isn't?
If we want to stop them coming here, then we can pay. No qualms about that.
But let's be honest this entire issue is about blaming somebody else for our problems. We've left the EU, we've taken back control. Our problem now, not France's.
I don't know, I'm just not seeing this issue as being as hilarious as people are acting like it is.
https://twitter.com/wrkclasshistory/status/1290110359093878786?s=20
What would happen if, say, @TSE decided to escape the UK for France. He bought/stole a boat or made one and set sail from Southampton. He arrived in Calais, tired but happy, several hours later.
Is it our job to police his departure for...well in this case France...or their job to ensure he doesn't enter their country?
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1292748959388237824?s=20
Is it morally right? Maybe not. But that's their right to do so.
And a YouGov poll isn't going to change that.
This whole thing is just a cheap ploy to get a polling lead and to exploit a tiny issue and to district from the real problems. Classic Tory diversion tactics.
But Branston said Reed was claiming he had allowed Dicks to perform the sex act on him on only one occasion
How very gentlemanly that he only 'allowed' her to do so on one occasion - sounds like he was not on board at all, but decided to be polite.
See, I can do it too.
Just a bit better.